Skip to main content

View Diary: Guns. Lots of Guns! (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  huh? I'm talking about the studies cited in (0+ / 0-)

    the diary. I mean, maybe you didn't read the diary?

    You go ahead and debunk any one of them, feel free. you choose.

    •  Bring one up. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, PavePusher

      We go through this drill each and every single time.  I'm done debunking second hand paraphrases from the Brady Bunch.  Pick one, find the study (or in at least one of those cases, lit review) sourced, and make your argument.  Otherwise, go on about your business.

      •  oh, well, that's kinda handy, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

        Kinda like the crazy GOP uncle who dissolves into bluster and insults when presented with reasoned arguments.

        Is "Pete Cortez" the Kossacks' gun group's crazy uncle? Or are you all like this?

        You said, pick a study, I'll debunk it, and as soon as I referred you to the studies the diarist cited, not "paraphrases," you said "I'm done."

        If there's a reason all the studies, and there are many of them, done by reputable institutions and published in very reputable scientific journals, are bogus: it should be easy to explain why.

        I'm not expecting Mr. Macho to do anything but shower me with further insults, but I am honestly curious: and if any other Kossack in this right to bear arms group wants to reply with some good reasons why all the studies are bogus, I would appreciate it.

        It seems to me to be a perfectly fair argument to support gun ownership despite the increased risk (see risk vs. benefits of driving on the freeway for example), but if you're doing to deny any increased risk to families with a gun in the home, I'd like to hear why.

        •  Still waiting. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I'm sure you've could've chosen and linked to a study in the time it took you to wrote this nonsense.

        •  Kellerman's been debunked. (5+ / 0-)

          For example: his study compares self protection DEATHS to other firearm related deaths. Most defensive gun uses don't include ANY shots fired, much less death.

          Separate note on suicide: I'm all for your right to end your own life. I think that if we want to fix suicide, we need single payer with universal access to mental health care.

          The Harvard one is not something that I'm familiar with but I would enjoy reading the study.

          One final note: quoting the Brady Campaign for the anti position is like quoting the NRA on the pro position.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 07:50:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks, KV. (0+ / 0-)

            I see that Kellerman's 1999 study has been widely criticized. although I don't see that the "debunking" includes evidence reversing his findings, just greatly reducing his percentages. Not that that's not important. and maybe I don't understand the criticism entirely.

            I didn't quote the Brady campaign, but surely a study in a reputable scientific journal isn't debunked just because the Brady campaign lists it? I actually went to the NRA site earlier, but I couldn't actually find any info debunking "families with guns in the home are not safer but statistically at greater risk of gun violence" studies. It's a very busy site, though, so that info might be there someplace.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site