A link to the "43 times" fallacy

B

BTR

New member
This could certainly prove useful in a debate. Note he "downgraded" his original "43 times" to 2 something, counted criminals as "victims" and counted guns brought into the households by intruders, as well as ignoring non-fatal defensive uses.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/SLICK.HTML
 
That was an amazing read. Thanks for the link.
The guy won't even give out his data for peer review. That is not science.
It says that NOT ONE of the people shot in his data was shot by a gun that was ordinarily kept in the home. Man, I can't believe how many people still regurgitate the "43 times" myth, and even the author of the myth, while using made-up statistics, can't come up with a better ratio than "2.7 times" and even that is a lie. Amazing. And WE, (our tax dollars), are funding this guy's work, with direct thanks to Janet Reno.

[This message has been edited by thaddeus (edited August 04, 1999).]
 
I think it was his report was so vague, they had no way of knowing if any of the homicides occured with the homeowners gun, though it could have been possible. What's stupid, and serves to point out the flaws-

If someone breaks into a house, murders the occupant, and there is a hunting shotgun in the closet, why, according to him it's just like the shotgun committed the murder.

However, if someone breaks into the house, is shot and wounded by the occupant, and turned over to the police (and paramedics), why of course that doesn't count a defensive use of a gun, cause he didn't die!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top