Your commentary has a common denominator: non sequitur. Sorry, but that is the best I can do with your rambling gobbledygook.

I read what you wrote. Why dont you explain it to me? I sense some reservation.

In reality, though, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that you simply cannot comprehend a very simple sentence – the first sentence in the post you appear to have so many problems with. Shall I simply rack this up as another example in the long line of Cliff Lyon’s lies, or is this a disability you have?

I do find it quite interesting, however, that you would choose to quantify bald-faced, obvious, pathetic lies as “name calling” – do you obfuscate this much in reality, or is this just an online persona for you? Do you lie this much all the time, and are you just not used to having people call you on it so readily?

You dont give me a high level of comfort that you understand the effect of the CDCs reclassification of mortality for which they warn us about using the 2 different data sets for cumulative analysis.

You also fail to make a case for the correlation between gun ownership and deaths. Since it is the basis for your conclusion. dont you think you should defend it?

I think you need to test your correlation against other metrics, like poverty, unemployment, and economics. Have you looked at age range?

There were some big fluctuations in some age groups over that period that some have suggested were gang related.

Some studies have shown a correlation to Roe v Wade and a resulting decrease in of-age shooters/unwanted pregnancies got aborted.

Your premise is that there is a material correlation to gun ownership, but you haven’t demonstrated that. Im just being really honest with you.

You did however manage to whine a bit more about name calling and feelings and threaten to take you ball and go home.

So what are we really doing here?

1. You lied initially about taking down the picture that precipitated this entire comment thread.

2. The statement “you guys [...] never link to references outside the NRA world” is demonstrably false, as a 10-second read of my webpage would clearly indicate (and I know you have spent more han 10 seconds poking around – gotta love server logs).

3. The statement “you guys are never honest about your methods” is likewise demonstrably false, given that I laid out exactly the methods used in the post to which you are probably referencing (which is this one, by the way, not the one I linked to above – try not to confuse the situation).

4. Moving on, the statement “you don’t even provide a general thesis except more guns equals fewer deaths using no other metrics” is intentionally misleading – that was never my thesis for the post in question, and I made that quite clear in the very opening paragraph. Your inability to comprehend what you read does not give you license to lie.

5. And keeping up with your previous pattern, the statement, “Total firearm offenses in England and Wales decreased by 30%,” is, most probably, a lie as well. What time-span are you talking about, Cliff? Because, in the past ten years, England and Wales have seen an over 35% increase in firearm-related offenses, as a ten-second Google search showed me. Even discounting imitation firearms (which I do not agree with – are you going to take the time to verify whether or not the firearm is real when it is pointed at you?), England and Wales have seen a 15%+ increase in frearm-related offenses. Bear in mind that in that time period, England and Wales only had a 5% population growth.

6. And in a repeat of the last one, regarding this statement: “gun deaths in the US INCREASED as did the rate of gun ownership”, what time period are you talking about? Because, coincidentally, in the past 10 years, firearm-related deaths in America have increased at nearly the same rate as our population, as the data clearly shows.

So, before we even get to the issue of how the CDC counts its numbers, we have three bald-faced lies, one misdirection, and two likely lies. Do you even understand what a lie is?

Cliff, you are not doing so well in the “credibility” department… but hypocrisy and hubris seem to be your best friends.

Now, as for how the CDC does keep track of its numbers, if you had bothered to do your homework in its entirety, you would stumble across something interesting. First, regarding deaths caused by accidental discharges of firearms (something the CDC really needs to rephrase), it turns out that the ICD-9 system (the older one) actually underreported fatalities by about 5.79% (which only makes the point of my originally-linked to post regarding firearms and accidents that much stronger). On the flip side, suicide-by-firearm was overreported by 0.18%, and homicide-by-firearm was overreported by 0.21%. Now, I am certainly willing to go back into my numbers and adjust them accordingly (and, in fact, I should, though I loathe trying to get that graph straight again… too many datasets), but I am quite willing to wager that they will not appreciably change the outcome of the situation in the slightest.

Of course, if you had actually bothered to couch your argument in facts, figures, and reality, you would have taken the time to do your own homework and figure out if this fight was worth it. As it is, you are no better than the vast majority of anti-rights activists – casting baseless aspersions at every opportunity, but having absolutely nothing to back them up with.

Let me know if you ever get over your problem of lying, and maybe then we can have a chat. Until then, you are hardly worth it, except for the sheer, ludicrous entertainment value.

(And given your site’s tedency to “mysteriously” eat comments, this one will be preserved for safe-keeping.)

Airtime is what matters and we have none. The teabaggers and gun nuts only APPEAR to be winning, but that’s all they care about;. appearances.

Very sad.

Total firearm offenses in England and Wales decreased by 30%. As you know, they banned handguns.

During the same time period, gun deaths in the US INCREASED as did the rate of gun ownership.

During the entire period you measured 1981-2006 gun related death (GRD) in the US fluctuated by almost 20% and is headed back up. IOW, in 2006, GRD are down 10% from 1981, but have gone up almost 20% higher. During the entire period, gun ownership increased steadily by 1% year.

I can find at least 5 other factors more closely correlated to gun deaths than gun ownership.

I’m afraid, by any statistical standard, you got nothin here.

I did follow your link this time and it will be the last time because it was a waste of time.

I don’t know if you are ware of it, but the CDC link now says;

“The coding of mortality data changed significantly in 1999 from ICD-9 to ICD-10, so you may not be able to compare number of deaths and death rates from 1998 and before with data from 1999. “

Did you know that when you came up with the most remarkable numbers in your remarkable analysis that the CDC had changed the mortality metrics? DId you know that when you did your anaylsis…

Between 1984 and 2006 (latest data available) the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)…

Did it occur to you there might be a problem with your analysis when no one else even the NRA, has touted this BS?

Linoge, Do you even understand this?

Be aware that ICD-10 is a completely different coding system than ICD-9. Cause (mechanism) of injury categories defined using ICD-9 E-codes for deaths in 1981 through 1998 are different from those defined by ICD-10 external cause of injury codes for deaths in 1999. ICD-10 has many changes from ICD-9, including considerably greater detail; shifts of inclusion terms and titles from one category section or chapter to another; regroupings of diseases; new titles and sections; and modifications in coding rules.3 National Center for Health Statistics does not recommend combining 1999 and later data in WISQARS with previous years by cause (mechanism) categories to obtain average annual numbers of death and death rates. Also, when looking at trends in annual numbers of deaths and death rates by mechanism/cause of injury, you should consider that changes in results from 1998 to 1999 could be a result of the change in code definitions and coding rules.1

Even of we assuming your numbers are accurate, you don’t provide and percent change metrics.

Heck, you don’t even provide a general thesis except more guns equals fewer deaths using no other metrics.

For those of you wishing to test this guys methods, have at it.

On the flip side, if you want a beautiful example of ad hominems (and continued, seemingly incessant, lies), just take a look at Cliff’s comments on the topic.

Becky Stauffer :More guns, more stupid people making bad choices with guns. Heaven help us.

False.

It takes a real man to admit his penis is wholly inadequate. And as I have often suspected, some men require guns to compensate for that inadequacy.