Shocking results from CDC gun violence study!

[brenthutch 383]

Attribution was made to the CDC in the title, and no additional editorial commentary was included in the post.

I wonder, if the National Review reprinted Mao's Little Red Book would Kallend disavow it and throw out his copy?

[billvon 2,400]

>Attribution was made to the CDC in the title, and no additional editorial commentary
>was included in the post.

Are you claiming you got that material from the CDC?

[brenthutch 383]

Bill looks like you might be starting to have a messenger/message inversion, better sit down and drink a glass of water, you have had enough Kool Aid.

[billvon 2,400]

>you have had enough Kool Aid.

When you can't even admit where you copied something from, you know you've got an agenda.

[brenthutch 383]

billvon

>you have had enough Kool Aid.

When you can't even admit where you copied something from, you know you've got an agenda.

I'm sorry Bill I am not sure what your point is. Are you disputing the findings of the CDC? Again an apparent message/messenger inversion. Please refer back to my National Review/Mao's Little Red Book reference.

My only agenda is the truth.

[billvon 2,400]

>I'm sorry Bill I am not sure what your point is.

It was a question, a pretty simple one really. Where did you copy that from?

Once you answer my question I will answer yours.

[jakee 1,255]

brenthutch

Attribution was made to the CDC in the title, and no additional editorial commentary was included in the post.

That is not true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Hooknswoop 19]

Is the study true or not?

Derek V

[jakee 1,255]

Hooknswoop

Is the study true or not?

It's not a study, and therefore your question doesn't really make sense.

But according to itself - "none of the existing databases, alone or combined, provide “comprehensive, timely, and accurate data needed to answer many important questions pertaining to the role of firearms in violent events" - it doesn't know if it's true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 383]

The information is from the CDC, I was made aware of it via a Facebook post, in much the same way you were made aware of it from me. I know the truth hurts when it does not comport with your world view but that is just something that you are going to have to get used to.

[billvon 2,400]

>The information is from the CDC

You are lying.

I downloaded the original CDC report and did a search for the very first conclusion in your post: "Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker." It was not in the report. Either you made it up or you got it somewhere else that you are afraid to admit.

If you ever feel like being honest about your sources, let us know.

[jakee 1,255]

brenthutch

The information is from the CDC,

The additional editorial commentary isn't.

Quote

I was made aware of it via a Facebook post,

You don't check the stuff you see on Facebook?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 383]

Show me, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it. Show me how all of the other points were not valid and I will be more than happy to concede. After all I am just interested in the truth, or as close as we can come to it.

[billvon 2,400]

>Show me, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it.

Sure. Here is the CDC study:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Download it in PDF form. Now search for the term "Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker." See if you can find it.

[brenthutch 383]

billvon

>Show me, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it.

Sure. Here is the CDC study:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Download it in PDF form. Now search for the term "Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker." See if you can find it.

Do you mean this?

"defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). "

Now I know it doesn't say, "Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.", so I understand if you can't make the connection, but trust me it means the same thing.

[Hooknswoop 19]

OK, so the CDC study is true?

Derek V

[tikl68 6]

[jakee 1,255]

Hooknswoop

OK, so the CDC study is true?

Are you only going to start listening when something crops up that you want to hear?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

brenthutch

Show me, if I am wrong I will gladly admit it.

You said the post was attributable to the CDC with no additional editorial content. But it does contain additional editorial content from a partisan anti-gun control source, which you appear to have now realised: Now I know it doesn't say, "Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker."

So could you admit that you were wrong about that, please?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[brenthutch 383]

Hooknswoop

OK, so the CDC study is true?

Derek V

Yes it is, you can read it yourself, BillV was kind enough to post a link.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Are you only going to start listening when something crops up that you want to hear?

I actually want to discuss the issue.

This CDC study is important for discussing the issue.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Yes it is, you can read it yourself, BillV was kind enough to post a link.

Yep, reading it now. Interesting study.

Derek V

[brenthutch 383]

No I will not, editorialize and summarize are not the same thing.
I can't believe that I am wasting my time responding to someone who is not even European anymore

ed·i·to·ri·al·ize
(of a newspaper, editor, or broadcasting organization) make comments or express opinions rather than just report the facts

sum·ma·rize
give a brief statement of the main points of
synonyms: sum up, abridge, condense, encapsulate

[jakee 1,255]

Hooknswoop

Quote

Are you only going to start listening when something crops up that you want to hear?

I actually want to discuss the issue.

Then why not discuss my previous answer instead of endlessly repeating an overly simplistic question that does not have an answer?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

brenthutch

No I will not,

What a surprise

Do you want to have an ideagasm?