What is this, a day trip for the members of the Small Penis Society?
Because that sure seems like what's going on here. Gun-nuts are small, scared, petty, cowardly, impotent little men, and having a gun makes them feel big and like they might be a hero one day - *exactly* the worst kind of immature, fearful, trigger-happy, ill-disciplined idiot who should never under any circumstances be trusted with the degree of power and responsibility that stems from owning a gun. The attachment is a purely emotional need stemming from a sense of fear and inadequacy, and that is demonstrated by the level of blatant and wilful self-delusion to which they will stoop to protect their cherished belief that having a gun actually makes them safer just because it makes them /feel/ safer. But it is an irrational belief, and hence when faced with a reality check these folks will actually deny or deliberately misinterpret the information that they are being told by their senses, in order to cling to their rigid dogma. For example:
>"So the message seems to be turn the other cheek and hope that the scumbag doesn't kill you just for being a pussy."
No, that's not what they said. They said that if you are carrying a gun when you are robbed, you are more likely to end up getting shot than if you are not carrying a gun. All that other stuff - about being a pussy - you just made it up, in order to try and use an emotional reaction to override factual knowledge and protect your self-identity. Sure, if you want to take your chances and you don't mind "losing" (by which you mean of course "dying years ahead of your time and losing your one and only chance at life in this world"), go ahead, but don't try and pretend you're playing the odds, because you're playing against them.
>"When only 4.5% of those shot were carrying guns, there doesn't seem much point in even checking any "control" group."
You sure have a lot of cheek accusing them of talking bollocks about statistics when all you've got is completely made-up guesswork like this. If you do the maths, you'll find out that with a sample of 4.5 percent from a group size of around 680 means you can make an analysis at the p<0.05 level of confidence; is that what you meant by "doesn't seem much point"? After all, the 0.05 level is used regularly in longitudinal and cohort studies, and it seems to produce fairly satisfactory ..... Wait, what? You haven't done the maths? You don't even know what any of this means? You weren't making a valid objection on mathematical grounds to the reliability of the conclusions that they were trying to draw? No, that's right. You weren't. You were talking bollocks. Not them. You.
>"Post hoc ergo proctor hoc - just because someone who owns a gun gets shot, does not mean that by the mere ownership they are more likely to be shot."
Wow, you sure know some big words and phrases from classical education, but that doesn't necessarily mean you understand them. If you want to talk about logical fallacies, let's have at your straw man here, because you have badly misrepresented what the study actually says. Their claim is not that "mere ownership" of a gun makes you "more likely to be shot", it is that "on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault" - i.e., when an assault happens. The only "moronic interpretation" is the twisted way you misdescribe the conclusion to try and turn it into something it is not.
>"A more useful statistic... might be the percentage of people carrying a gun who used them successfully to defend themselves in an attack, no?"
No, why would it be? It tells you nothing *comparative*. And it doesn't tell you the most important thing: not whether you defend yourself, but whether you survive, either by defending yourself witha gun /or/ by not doing so. What you want to know is whether carrying a gun makes you more or less likely to *survive* an attack. Carrying a gun increases your chances of using it to successfully defend yourself in an attack relative to your chances of defending yourself with a gun when you aren't carrying a gun (0%), certainly, but you're just ignoring the 99% of all cases where you don't carry a gun, don't defend yourself with it, and still walk away without a scratch on you. Suppose 50% of people carrying a gun use them successfully to defend themselves in an attack, whereas 99% of people not carrying a gun also don't get killed - sounds like carrying a gun increases your chance of death from 1% to 50%. Those are made up figures, they are just to demonstrate that it could be either way and you can't tell anything from the statistic that you're asking to hear.
I could go on, but I won't bother, it's really tedious ploughing through all these inane attempts at logic, maths and reasoning from a bunch of armchair statisticians and theoretical experimentalists. Clearly, none of you have even bothered to click the link and read so much as the abstract of the paper (and you could have found the whole thing available free online if you had actually *wanted* to know what you were talking about), since it appears they have anticipated all your objections.
So all your supposedly clever-seeming arguments are in fact groundless and merely evidence of your self-delusion: you have a prejudged conclusion about whether having a gun makes you safer or not, based solely on your gut response emotional reaction that it makes you feel safer, and when some evidence comes along that threatens your cherished belief, you invent all these objections completely out of thin air. But you are deluded and irrational, and your attempts at stringing together anything approaching a coherent or logical argument are laughable and transparent to anyone who isn't in the grip of the fear and loathing that drives your gun-mania.