Super Lib posted a cartoon full of Brady Bunch "statistics" about how you are a million more times likely to be murdered or suicided if you have a gun in the home.

I replied simply: "Wonderful distortion of statistics. Concurrence does not equal causation" and left it at that.

His lib friend: "concurrance? you can't be shot if guns aren't there to be shot with. if you have guns in your home and there is an invasion, you are unlikely to be able to get to them and load them in time to use them against the perp, but if you try, you are more likely to be shot by the perp than if you just shut up and wait till they leave. if you keep the gun loaded and ready in the night stand and the end table and the kitchen drawer so that you can use it in the extremely rare occurance of a home invasion, th odds are far far far higher that one of your kids or a neighbor kid will find it and use it even while you are home but in another room. this is not a 'concurrance' but direct cause and effect."

Me:  "I'm sorry but I'm not willing to sit there and shut up until they leave. It is quite a large supposition that all they would be interested in is my property, or that they would not have brought their own gun. As well as the supposition that a responsible gun owner wouldn't simply have a pistol safe nearby to allow for a ready tool with which to defend themselves.

And those things are all still concurrence. My gun has never caused me to do anything.

Concurrence =/= causation."

Lib: " Well if you take into account all the suicides that were the result of guns, and are able to go back in time and remove those guns, you wouldn't prevent all of them but you would prevent a lot of them. I really don't see the distortion of facts here, they seem pretty black and white to me. If you own a gun, you're more likely to get killed by a gun. That seems like it should be a pretty verifiable fact, not that I have."

Which is when I had massive adrenaline dump, bladed my keyboard at 45 and posted: " Your logic is akin to saying condoms cause sex. They were designed for the purpose of sex, they are involved in a great many sexual encounters. Therefore condoms cause sex. That is what you are saying. That the inanimate object causes behavior. Why is it when the far right opposes making condoms available to teens as a part of sex education, we dismantle this exact same logic in defense of that practice? For logic to be sound, it must apply broadly."


BOOM!!!  Neither of them had a response.  Then they tried quoting more Brady bunch "stats" to which I replied: "Until you start citing credible sources that don't simply seek evidence in support of their conclusion we have nothing to say.  The hallmark of a good social study is the conclusion must be drawn from the evidence, not the other way around."



Anyway, I just wanted to point out a good argument to a logical fallacy employed by "them".  Also, they kept insisting guns are used against their owners more often than not.  I know this isn't true but have no credible source.  Does anybody have one please?

Nice!

Good for you, no way better to start your week than bitching at some dumbass liberal idiots...

Offer to take them shooting or write them off.

You do have a way with words. Write your elected officials.

Nvm

that is the only reason I miss FB, "pantsing" idiot liberals!

I do.  Often.

And thanks!

Everytime I buy condoms I have sex. So condoms do make you have sex.

Everytime I buy a gun I get yelled at by a women and then I don't need a condom because im not going to be having sex for a while. Guns can be birth control if your spouse is tight on your money.

The fallacy is that you only consider the scenarios where someone is shot.

Often, the bad guy decides to rapidly unass and egress when he realizes violent, repeated perforations are likely in his immediate future. Shots don't always have to be fired to achieve this, and Kleck's research suggests this happens far more often than shooting.

Who cares.  More FB anti gun drama......... You can spend the rest of your life on there and win nothing for us.


Spend time instead getting all gun owners supporting each other

Well played OP.


But you didnt win until they call you names. Thats the standard I set for arguing with libs. Once they lash out- my work is com ppl ete.

There was a very good article posted here that dismantles the Brady Bunch "40 something times more likely" shtick.

Lol, yeah I try to keep it more civil.  I know I will never change someone's mind.  At the least I want to shame them publicly, or cause them shame privately because they know they are full of shit, each time they spout that stuff.


It is very interesting though that the anti-Second Amendment camp seems to employ a massive amount of misinformation.  I mean, all sides of any social issue are guilty of this, but the gun owner control issue seems unique to me.  Little to no misinformation from the PRO 2A side, but seemingly nothing but misinfo from them.

Very well said.  You, sir, are quite articulate.

Boom! Roasted.

Very nicely done. Articulate, level-headed, and simple. Spot on.

Good blading of keyboard.

9.5/10

NICE...

funny

Good job but at the end of the day you won't convince them of anything. But the positive is that it disputed their posting which normally would go undisputed and some people would read and take as fact.

I disagree.  There are not anti's on my Facebook.  I use it to keep tabs on pro 2A organizations, and to disseminate good talking points to like minded friends.  A good friend of mine, who is also a local LEO, said he is the best informed guy on current 2A events in his department in no small part because of my posts on Facebook.  Furthermore, even though I have purged almost all libs from my friend list, not everyone has.  When someone comments or shares something I post, there is a good chance someone who is on the fence might see it.  If those people start thinking, then I have won a small victory for the 2A.






 

I wish we had a like button here.

Suicides generally pick their method of self-demise in advance, but that method is not set in stone.
Look at Japan where guns are much fewer in number than in the US, but has a higher suicide rate.
Denied one method of doing ones-self in, the suicide-inclined will simply pick another method.

well done!

that was a very good analogy... with the rubber

Is that your own? Never heard it before

Good job, keep it up.

I'll make an attempt to answer your question.
Who the heck knows?  This is the closest I got after looking for a couple of hours.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm?s_cid=ss6106a1_w

They have a ton of other info (don' know how much is true, i.e., I don't trust em) that can be found.

My thoughts; it's better for me and my family if one is suicidal vs homicidal no matter what is used for the end result.

Tell him forks cause obesity and pencils are responsible for misspelled words.

Oh, and the phrase is "correlation does not equal causation", not "concurrence".

ETA, also tell him that if a bad guy breaks into your home while you're there, you can pretty much be assured he intends to cause you harm.  Bad guys make a habit of knowing when their robbery victims won't be home, and adjust their break-ins accordingly.

yeah, thought it was pretty good too.

concurrence is used more commonly in legal context, correlation is used more commonly in medical or scientific context.  Either or works for the sake of our argument.

 

THIS !!

Did it after FB interaction with POTUS.
Have never regretted the day.

I have 9 people on my FB; all family!



2 kids

Mother

GF

handful of aunts and uncles



Friends ask, denied!



Co-workers ask, denied!



Don't want my life out there and most importantly don't want to hear about anybody elses life, lack of or drama!



 

good job

nicely done

i like that, condoms cause sex just like guns cause crime

Because you own a car, you are more likely to die in an auto accident.  Ban cars, if it saves even one life, it will be worth it.

Some people are so scared of dying that they cannot live, or think logically.

DISENGAGE! DISENGAGE!

Very well done Sir

There is a whole nation of current and former adolescent boys with condoms in their wallet who can attest that it doesn't work that way ;)