this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
499 points (98.1% liked)
Crazy Fucking Videos
8708 readers
629 users here now
Dive into the World of Insane Videos!
Rules
- No hate speech of any kind.
- Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
- Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's total bullshit.
Here's what Harvard actually has to say about guns and it is 100% the opposite of what you've described.
https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/injury-control/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/
My mistake, it wasn't Harvard, it was Phillip Cook using the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) Data. It's only been 8yr since I read the article, please forgive my indiscretions. In my defense Harvard is also mentioned.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
Needless to say I disagree with the disqualification of defensive display categorically, but understand why it would be done for official estimates (though that would mean the official would be purposefully low, by the nature if many of them not having police reports or being one's word against another even if they exist there's no real reliable way to collect those statistics, so I think it's best to leave them out.) Mostly I think it should just be kept in mind that the official estimate is based off of incomplete data and is low, lest we end up with ridiculous estimates like 3,000,000.
And yet still, ~~Harvard~~ the NCVS data* (whoops lol) estimates defensive gun use as 40k higher than gun deaths, and that's with less than 20% of Americans carrying daily. To say it's so rare it's a myth is to say all gun death (60k), gun homicide (12k), accidental gun injuries (~1,500) and deaths (~500), are also myths due to rarity. And also the OG Black Lotus card at 1,100 printed.
Is still indeed not true, regardless of if I misremembered just who said that one detail from 8y ago.
Again, your unsourced bullshit is not an actual summation of verifiable data.
It's just right-wing talking points, dude, with the veneer of pseudoscience.
More guns = more people die from guns. It's not any more difficult than that.
I mean you can disagree with the accredited crime researcher and the NCVS data he used (it is a move I guess) all you want, but I've posted the source where I got my claims, so "unsourced" is verifiably false, it's right there.
More water = more people drown, it's not any more difficult than that, ban water.
You can keep posting right-wing jerkoff fantasy as much as you want. Doesn't change the fact that the guy got his science wrong.
Oh sorry I didn't realize I was talking to the great Bill Cheddar, foremost US crime statistics expert and king of all knowledge. How silly of me to not recognize you my liege.
Did I lay the sarcasm on thick enough? Don't want to accidentally stroke your clearly already too massive ego. In case it wasn't clear I'm going with "the guy who went to school for it" over "lemmy dickhead."
Appeal to authority?
Tell us again how you're not a dishonest hack?
Better than "appeal to nuh-uh." You've put forth nothing of an argument beyond "you quoted the wrong name in the article." Which has been resolved, yet you still screech "nuh-uh" at the heavens. Forgive me if you're less than convincing.