It's a sloppy page of statistics crowbared together.
It's comparing figures from random 1 year samples over the course of 2 decades from surveys with different types of data sets.
There's a column for self defence yet not filled in.
Either nobody shot in self defence in the various years it was made or the author thought up the lists before reading data.
The U.S data is from 2004-2006 yet it says 1 year.
There's more holes to poke in it but I can't be bothered.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:08,
Reply)
I'm not about to write an academic paper on it,
it's surely good enough a rough guide for a casual internet debate.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:17,
Reply)
Quite right.
It wouldn't be an Internet debate if the opinions were informed and useful ! ;-)
(
JamTallons, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:23,
Reply)
Not really. Why use a flawed set of figures as a basis for a discussion?
Especially where there's many other source options that are current.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_hom_wit_fir-crime-gun-violence-homicides-firearms
Fill yer boots.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:28,
Reply)
great.
It cites Wikipedia as its source.
(
Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:33,
Reply)
Did you look at the source page?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence
Lunch now, you can have the last word on this i've got salad to eat.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:40,
Reply)
Have you noticed that always having the last word
seems far more important to her than consistency or actual informed, intelligent argument?
(
Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Fri 20 Jul 2012, 12:58,
Reply)