Even with so many gun free zones, American gun owners are saving lives during violent mass shootings

[tycho1572]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The average Democrat doesn't want to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's a BS story made by ultra right wing nutters. What most of us want is common sense gun regulations and slowly, they are being adopted throughout the United States State by State like they are supposed to. Not at the Federal Level.

You and I both know you’re full of shit. We’ve been hearing that nonsense from democrats for years.

 

[tycho1572]

This is how I’d like to see every home invasion play out....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The average Democrat doesn't want to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's a BS story made by ultra right wing nutters. What most of us want is common sense gun regulations and slowly, they are being adopted throughout the United States State by State like they are supposed to. Not at the Federal Level.

You and I both know you’re full of shit. We’ve been hearing that nonsense from democrats for years.

And yo u know I am a Democrat how? Since the bulk of the people in the state I live in have elected to go with common sense gun regulations does that make them all Democrats? Or are we all Democrats just because you say so? Even the average Democrat leans a little to the right on this subject. But don't let that get in the way of your hate speech.

 

[whitehall]

No NRA member in modern history has ever been accused much less convicted of a mass shooting. All mass shootings in modern history were perpetrated by left wing democrats and insane people (same thing?). The mainstream media buried the story of the Sanders democrat activist who opened fire on a republican baseball team last year, faster then they buried James Hodgkinson. The Vegas shooter is still shrouded in media fog but the only logical motive seems to be that Stephen Paddock opened fire on a right wing cowboy concert because he hated republicans.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No NRA member in modern history has ever been accused much less convicted of a mass shooting. All mass shootings in modern history were perpetrated by left wing democrats and insane people (same thing?). The mainstream media buried the story of the Sanders democrat activist who opened fire on a republican baseball team last year, faster then they buried James Hodgkinson. The Vegas shooter is still shrouded in media fog but the only logical motive seems to be that Stephen Paddock opened fire on a right wing cowboy concert because he hated republicans.

Oh, I see. If they are mentally unstable and do a mass shooting, just before they do the shooting, they are required by law to rush right down to the county court house and register as a democrat. Give that a rest. Mass shootings are not Partisan in any way shape or form and making that claim just means that you are playing the Orange Card way too hard.

As for Paddock, read,

Las Vegas shooting: gunman was on losing streak and 'germophobic', police say

There has been no mention about his party affiliation at all. But he just dropped a bundle in his business ventures and just came back from dropping a huge amount that that particular casino. Life, as he knew it, was destroyed and he took it out on the one thing that he blamed for his most recent loss. But there is no Nevada State Law that made him have to rush right down to the county court house to register as any type of party member. And he didn't. Stop making shit up.

 

[tycho1572]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

Like cars, guns can take lives.

Can you honestly say you’ve never heard democrats attacking our 2nd amendment rights?

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, that isn't even close to being true...why do you keep pulling nonsense out of your ass and acting like it is a profound point....

The CDC found that Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack....the anti gun CDC......you don't know what you are talking about.

And since 1993 there was a 49% drop in gun murder....that is more lives saved than taken with guns.....

There you go again. Now, how about a direct cite to that elusive CDC report you keep touting. Not some site that claims to have seen it, but the real deal on the CDC site itself. So far, the closest thing you done ended up with a "File cannot be Found" page. Stop making shit up.

Moron, I gave you the link where Kleck does the work on their numbers....you pretend you haven't seen it because you are a dishonest asshat.

Here it is again, you moron......

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Date Written: July 11, 2018

Abstract
In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to seven states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Data pertaining to the same sets of states from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995) allow these results to be extrapolated to the U.S. as a whole. CDC’s survey data confirm previous high estimates of DGU prevalence, disconfirm estimates derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, and indicate that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

Here we go again. Do you honestly think enough time has passed that we have forgotten Kleck? And you still haven't given the actual CDC site cite except for once with a "File Not Found" page. But let's take a good look at Kleck. We already covered this. Kleck is a fraud.

Contradictions of Kleck
In a 1992 survey, Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, found that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by “law-abiding” citizens in the United States. Another study from the same period, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), estimated 65,000 DGUs annually. The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crimes: rape, robbery, assault, burglary, non-business larceny, and motor vehicle theft. That accounts for the discrepancy in the two results. A National Research Council report said that Kleck's estimates appeared to be exaggerated and that it was almost certain that "some of what respondents designate[d] as their own self-defense would be construed as aggression by others" (Understanding and Preventing Violence, 266, Albert J. Reiss, Jr. & Jeffrey A. Roth, eds., 1992).

The 2.5 million figure would lead us to conclude that, in a serious crime, the victim is three to four times more likely than the offender to have and use a gun. Although the criminal determines when and where a crime occurs, although pro-gun advocates claim that criminals can always get guns, although few potential victims carry guns away from home, the criminal, according to Kleck’s survey, is usually outgunned by the individual he is trying to assault, burglarize, rob or rape.

Kleck’s survey also included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military of police uses. Kleck’s Interviewers do not appear to have questioned a random individual at a given telephone number, but rather asked to speak to the male head of the household. Males from the South and West were oversampled. The results imply that many hundreds of thousands of murders should have been occurring when a private gun was not available for protection. Yet guns are rarely carried, less than a third of adult Americans personally own guns, and only 27,000 homicides occurred in 1992.

(I removed the part where someone is using a poll to prove flying saucers exist using the same leading and loaded type questions)

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

STUDIES SHOWING RISK OF GUNS OUTWEIGH BENEFITS

“Given the number of victims allegedly being saved with guns, it would seem natural to conclude that owning a gun substantially reduces your chances of being murdered. Yet a careful case-control study of homicide in the home found that a gun in the home was associated with an increased rather than a reduced risk of homicide. Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.”

- Arthur L. Kellermann et al., Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 New Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087 (1993)

In 1997, Cummings and colleagues at the University of Washington reported that the legal purchase of a handgun was associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STUDIES CONCERNING DEFENSIVE GUN USES

DOJ study reported 83,000 annual defensive gun uses from 1987-1992. During same period, there were more than 135,000 total gun deaths and injuries in the U.S. annually.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

As for the notion that those using firearms to fend off attackers were more effective in avoiding injury than those using other weapons or no weapons, the DOJ study makes the following exclaimer: "Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to victims' injury outcomes."

What is also interesting is that the study notes that "In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms." Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun. DOJ makes no judgments in this study on whether the level of force employed by these individuals was appropriate or consonant with the threat they faced. It may very well be that the presence of firearms in many of these incidents escalated what otherwise might have been non-violent (or non-fatal) encounters.

According to the DOJ study, gun owners also provided criminals with ample opportunities to arm themselves through firearm theft: "From 1987-1992 victims reported an annual average of about 341,000 incidents of firearm theft. Because the NCVS asks for types but not a count of items stolen, the annual total of firearms stolen probably exceeds the number of incidents." It should also be noted that there is no federal law requiring the reporting of lost and stolen firearms, and almost no state laws in this regard. There are undoubtedly thousands of stolen firearms that go entirely unreported every year.

Are you really this stupid....I gave you the link to Kleck's analysis of the actual CDC data that they hid since the 1990s......are you really this stupid?

Your link from about the National Crime Victimization Survey...fails to point out the most important thing..... The National Crime Victimization Survey is not a gun self defense study....


they never ask anyone about using a gun for self defense..

...the word gun is not mentioned in the NCVS at all, which is why it is the only survey where the defensive gun use is so low......it would be like asking people about which car they drive, having them tell you that they drove that car to the store to pick up orange juice and claiming that the survey was the ultimate study on Orange Juice consumption in the country....

You are an idiot..

The NCVS survey differed from Kleck’s study in that it only interviewed those who reported a threatened, attempted, or completed victimization for one of six crime

The NCVS did not ask a direct question about wether the victim used a gun to stop a violent crime.....not once.....Actual studies on Gun self defense actually ask...did you use a gun for self defense in the last year and then in the last 5 years.

The self defense issue went down but the accidental shootings went up in the homes. Plus, most of the so called home defense shootings you bring up weren't necessary. Cocking or sliding the action and then saying, "I think you should leave" would have worked just as well in almost all cases. I have been on receiving end of an action being locked ready and trust me, there is NOTHING scarier. Unless that person is also armed with a gun, there is almost no reason to just start shooting.

Kleck took the data and included Military and Police along with Civilian as well. And his so called poll questions were squewed. Let's see if I can prove if there really is Flying UFO Saucers.

Question 1: Is it possible that there might be UFOs?
Question 2: Have you ever heard of someone else that claims to have seen an UFO
Question 3: Have you ever seen an UFO

Question 1 and 2 are counted as yes by a very large margin while question 3 is counted as no by a very large margin. Therefore, the conclusion is that more than 2 out of 3 people believe in UFOs. The way that Kleck performed his poll was asking those types of leading questions.

If you accept Kleck's output then the Victim is 4 times as likely to be armed with a firearm than the criminal trying to accost them. Cue in the theme from the Twilight Zone at this time

Kleck is a fake and his output data may have some semblance of actual data in the beginning but the way he presents it is that of a charlatan. I already showed that. You are just using bad data to make up more shit again.

You are just trying to bury these facts with tons of background noise. Here is your ass.

Moron... you don't know what you are talking about....you are pulling this out of your ass.....

You didn't read Kleck's study, you keep mixing up Kleck's work with the CDC research and you just lied, again, about Kleck including the police and military......

You keep making crap up and then you sit there thinking you are clever...you are an idiot.

 

[2aguy]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The average Democrat doesn't want to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's a BS story made by ultra right wing nutters. What most of us want is common sense gun regulations and slowly, they are being adopted throughout the United States State by State like they are supposed to. Not at the Federal Level.

The average democrat wants pointless new gun control laws, the leadership of the democrat party wants to ban and confiscate guns...so it doesn't matter what the average democrat wants......they don't run the party.

 

[2aguy]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....

And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide

shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.


And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

-----

And more on Kellerman.....

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

 

[tycho1572]

Gotta love an armed lady.

For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....

And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide

shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.


And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

-----

And more on Kellerman.....

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

Kellerman only addressed suicides. Nothing else. And having a gun or not, if a person is dead serious about committing suicide they are going to commit suicide regardless. The gun just makes it easier and final with no saving grace. As usual, Kellerman used fuzzy math. Here are the real figures for suicide.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

The 440 case individuals are

• 
  High-Risk with gun 110
  High-Risk without Gun 110
  Low-Risk with gun 55
  Low Risk without Gun 165

The population as a whole is

• 
  High-Risk with gun 5.0%
  High-Risk without gun 5.0%
  Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
  Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.

This clearly shows that they are equal or the non gun suicides are actually higher. And, once again, no mention of CDC at all since that data cannot be accessed by anyone. Kellerman is a fraud. The only saving grace Kellerman has is that he's hated by the NRA since he just won't quite toe the company line. But he's not a mathematician, or a gun expert of any kind. He's a Physician.

You are still trying to post as much crap so we won't see that you are just making crap up again.






.

• 
  
  

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gotta love an armed lady.

For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.

Since there are 4 times the number of in home shootings of family members that were mistaken for intruders, I suggest the other side start posting 4 of those for each 1 of what you post.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

The average Democrat doesn't want to abolish the 2nd amendment. That's a BS story made by ultra right wing nutters. What most of us want is common sense gun regulations and slowly, they are being adopted throughout the United States State by State like they are supposed to. Not at the Federal Level.

The average democrat wants pointless new gun control laws, the leadership of the democrat party wants to ban and confiscate guns...so it doesn't matter what the average democrat wants......they don't run the party.

Just because you say so. Or your heroes tell you to think that way. Grow a pair and a brain, cupcake.

 

[tycho1572]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....

And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide

shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.


And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

-----

And more on Kellerman.....

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

Kellerman only addressed suicides. Nothing else. And having a gun or not, if a person is dead serious about committing suicide they are going to commit suicide regardless. The gun just makes it easier and final with no saving grace. As usual, Kellerman used fuzzy math. Here are the real figures for suicide.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

The 440 case individuals are

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 110
    High-Risk without Gun 110
    Low-Risk with gun 55
    Low Risk without Gun 165

The population as a whole is

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 5.0%
    High-Risk without gun 5.0%
    Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
    Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.

This clearly shows that they are equal or the non gun suicides are actually higher. And, once again, no mention of CDC at all since that data cannot be accessed by anyone. Kellerman is a fraud. The only saving grace Kellerman has is that he's hated by the NRA since he just won't quite toe the company line. But he's not a mathematician, or a gun expert of any kind. He's a Physician.

You are still trying to post as much crap so we won't see that you are just making crap up again.






.

• 
  

Are you trying to use suicide as an argument against guns?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gotta love an armed lady.

For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.

And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?

 

[2aguy]

These cops were glad they got help from a responsible gun owner....
Cicero's top cop praises concealed gun holder who fired at suspect after officer shot

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....

And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide

shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.


And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

-----

And more on Kellerman.....

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

Kellerman only addressed suicides. Nothing else. And having a gun or not, if a person is dead serious about committing suicide they are going to commit suicide regardless. The gun just makes it easier and final with no saving grace. As usual, Kellerman used fuzzy math. Here are the real figures for suicide.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

The 440 case individuals are

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 110
    High-Risk without Gun 110
    Low-Risk with gun 55
    Low Risk without Gun 165

The population as a whole is

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 5.0%
    High-Risk without gun 5.0%
    Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
    Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.

This clearly shows that they are equal or the non gun suicides are actually higher. And, once again, no mention of CDC at all since that data cannot be accessed by anyone. Kellerman is a fraud. The only saving grace Kellerman has is that he's hated by the NRA since he just won't quite toe the company line. But he's not a mathematician, or a gun expert of any kind. He's a Physician.

You are still trying to post as much crap so we won't see that you are just making crap up again.






.

• 
  

Moron.....Japan, China, Korea all have extrem gun control...only criminals and cops have guns....and their suicide rates are higher than ours...not only that, even countries in Europe that have extreme gun control have higher suicide rates than ours....so suicide isn't a gun issue, you doofus......

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide



There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.

Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).

Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).

Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)

Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

 

[tycho1572]

Gotta love an armed lady.

For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.

And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?

How many times will we be hearing horror stories because people didn’t have a way to protect themselves?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I started a thread on this very story.....great story...

After seeing numerous examples of people saving themselves and others from certain harm, I’ll never understand why many democrats still talk about abolishing the 2nd amendment.

I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.

Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers

That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....

And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?

The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."

The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)

A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.

Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide

shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.


And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.

-----

And more on Kellerman.....

Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6

Kellerman only addressed suicides. Nothing else. And having a gun or not, if a person is dead serious about committing suicide they are going to commit suicide regardless. The gun just makes it easier and final with no saving grace. As usual, Kellerman used fuzzy math. Here are the real figures for suicide.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

The 440 case individuals are

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 110
    High-Risk without Gun 110
    Low-Risk with gun 55
    Low Risk without Gun 165

The population as a whole is

• 
  
  
  • 
    High-Risk with gun 5.0%
    High-Risk without gun 5.0%
    Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
    Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.

This clearly shows that they are equal or the non gun suicides are actually higher. And, once again, no mention of CDC at all since that data cannot be accessed by anyone. Kellerman is a fraud. The only saving grace Kellerman has is that he's hated by the NRA since he just won't quite toe the company line. But he's not a mathematician, or a gun expert of any kind. He's a Physician.

You are still trying to post as much crap so we won't see that you are just making crap up again.






.

Are you trying to use suicide as an argument against guns?

Not me, your gunnutter boyfriend brought that up like it means anything and he even screwed that up. We can't do a thing about suicides that are successful. If a person doesn't have a gun and decides he wants to commit suicide by gun, he can legally purchase a gun, take it home and kill himself and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Or he can find the nearest drug dealer and buy a weeks worth of smack and do the same thing. It's not an issue and I don't even try and bring it up. But your gunnutter boyfriend wants to make shit up about it to try and win an unwinnable argument.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gotta love an armed lady.

For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.

And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?

How many times will we be hearing horror stories because people didn’t have a way to protect themselves?

Maybe the gun grabbers need to bring up all those innocents that were killed because they were mistaken for intruders. That happens 4 times the rate as the real intruder. This could get real ugly fast. I just don't have the time nor the stomach to do that myself.