<p>If texas is indeed trying to ban critical thinking, then they are dopes. I know my nephew just moved to virginia this year and can’t even say “evolution” in his high school science class, the federal government should stop this imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another statement of complete B.S. Why don’t you do some research before embarrassing yourself, sally?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment.” By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000</p>
<p>Read it and weep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A homicide is fairly well-defined. Usually, there’s a body. You can count bodies.</p>
<p>What constitutes an act of self-defense? This is relatively hard to define. If I step out on my porch and yell, “Get off my yard, I have a gun!” is that an act of self-defense with a firearm?</p>
<p>Whatever the Journal of Quantitative Criminology might be counting, I’m suspicious that it is expressed as precisely as “989,883”. That number is about 3000x larger than the number of justifiable homicides reported in FBI statistics per year ([Bureau</a> of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: Trends in the Percent of Homicides Cleared by Arrest Table](<a href=“http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/tables/justifyreasontab.cfm]Bureau”>http://www.bjs.gov/content/homicide/tables/justifyreasontab.cfm)). </p>
<p>If there is no body to count, what is this journal counting? And why, if the number is so big (~30x the annual number of gun deaths), don’t we hear about more of these events? Even if they weren’t newsworthy stories, they’d be gossip-worthy. I think people I know would be talking about them. I’ve never in my life known anyone to do so.</p>
<p>
Because the latter number is fiction. Those million people don’t really exist. They are a product of flawed statistical study and people reporting things that did not, in fact, happen. A million people a year would be hard to hide if they existed. But you don’t know any of them, and I don’t either. There would be over 40,000,000 in Americans who had done this during my adult lifetime - where are they? The ability of gunners to accept a number which is obviously, ludicrously wrong - and quote it - is evidence of the fundamental disconnect between their worldview and mature rationality.</p>
<p>(Again, read “the signal and the noise” it’s - not about guns, but an excellent explanation about how wildly inaccurate projections arise from data involving rare events that’s not analyzed correctly.)</p>
<p>"let’s not forget that Texas is trying to remove the concept of critical thinking from its schools because free-thinking kids might then ignore their parents’ “fixed” beliefs. "</p>
<p>There is a Texas out there we don’t know about? Who the heck is trying to copy us? We have already fixed our dangammit kids to inherit our beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do you know who I know and who I don’t? I do happen to know quite a few people who used guns to protect themselves, actually. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Saying a statistic is false just because it makes your argument look bad is ridiculous.
These kinds of stories don’t always make the news, so there’s no reason why you should expect these people to get celebrity attention. Just like gang deaths don’t make the news. It doesn’t mean they don’t happen.</p>
<p>So kluge, are you saying that no one should be allowed to own a gun to defend their home?</p>
<p>Bay, you can read it for yourself. Is the Washington Post a good enough source for you?</p>
<p>[Texas</a> GOP rejects ‘critical thinking’ skills. Really. - The Answer Sheet - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html]Texas”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html)</p>
<p>Read what raiders83 said. This is actually happening in some of the red states.</p>
<p>sally,</p>
<p>Here you go, from the source:[Texas</a> GOP chair explains controversial “critical thinking” platform language | kvue.com Austin](<a href=“http://www.kvue.com/news/Texas-GOP-chair-explains-controversial-critical-thinking-platform-language-163615606.html]Texas”>http://www.kvue.com/news/Texas-GOP-chair-explains-controversial-critical-thinking-platform-language-163615606.html)</p>
<p>Now stop messing with Texas!</p>
<p>Sounds to me like that study used Unskewed Polls to collect there data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find this highly improbable. I know of only one, myself, and I have been alive a long time.</p>
<p>Unless you are talking about military service or criminal justice, you are just making this up.</p>
<p>ETA: or, you could be talking about criminals, I suppose.</p>
<p>Bay - I prefer the washington post version. It will deter at least a few from moving to Texas.</p>
<p>Oh, Tex, they are ALL coming to texas and you know it. They don’t want to pay those taxes in CA and they can’t get a job and they are coming to Texas to mess with your laws. :p</p>
<p>Oops, sorry tex.</p>
<p>
Since I’ve never mentioned that issue, I find it interesting that you bring it up. Personally, I think that people who buy a gun for the express purpose of “defending their home” are narcissistic fools - people with a wildly inflated perception of their skills and abilities and a wildly deflated understanding of the risks and dangers they are creating. So I question their judgment. But “allow?” I think people should “be allowed to own” tinfoil hats to keep the government from reading their thoughts. I think people should be “allowed” to own motorcycles which travel far faster than is safe or ever wise. I consider guns to be in the same category. (But you have to have insurance for the motorcycle. I kind of like the idea of requiring gun owners to have insurance. Where do you stand on that, Bay?)</p>
<p>Incidentally, here’s an article with lots of cites to data regarding the risks and benefits of gun ownership “for protection.”</p>
<p>[Medscape:</a> Medscape Access](<a href=“http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058]Medscape:”>http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why did the NRA TWEET A LINK to this story??</p>
<p>[Melinda</a> Herman, Mom Who Shot Intruder, Inspires Gun Control Foes](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not the NRA, why don’t you ask them? But the most logical answer is that showing that people do protect themselves with guns is a reality, and is overshadowed by the constant negative aspect coming from liberal media outlets.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You crack me up, kluge. I’ve only asked the same dang question 3 times. You can’t pontificate around me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have insurance. I question whether requiring it will fly, though, because it will discriminate against the poor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or how about a tax in order to vote? Oh wait…
As you can see your arguments aren’t very consistent since they contradict each other.</p>