Guns - a list

Reminding conservative members of USMB there are idiots out in the world is really unnecessary. We deal with them on a daily basis.
 
Hey, I'm not into arguing. I like to express my position and that's about it.

My position has nothing to do with "trouncing" on the Constitutional right to bear arms.

I'm commenting on the obvious. We live in a gun culture.

A woman is much more likely to die in a DV home where guns are available.





See Dr. Edgar Suters response above. Your figures are wrong and demonstrably so. The study that it is based on was horribly biased and lacked any semblance of proper survey conduct.

But hey, if you wish to base your belief system on a lie, by all means do so.

I won't.

OK, when I have time I will check your Dr Sutgers. Often these studies show correlation, not causation. They're different.




Indeed they are. Unfortunately for the studies you quote, they didn't even have good correlation till they fudged the numbers and violated statistical principles.
 
See Dr. Edgar Suters response above. Your figures are wrong and demonstrably so. The study that it is based on was horribly biased and lacked any semblance of proper survey conduct.

But hey, if you wish to base your belief system on a lie, by all means do so.

I won't.

OK, when I have time I will check your Dr Sutgers. Often these studies show correlation, not causation. They're different.




Indeed they are. Unfortunately for the studies you quote, they didn't even have good correlation till they fudged the numbers and violated statistical principles.

That will leave a nasty scar.
 
See Dr. Edgar Suters response above. Your figures are wrong and demonstrably so. The study that it is based on was horribly biased and lacked any semblance of proper survey conduct.

But hey, if you wish to base your belief system on a lie, by all means do so.

I won't.

OK, when I have time I will check your Dr Sutgers. Often these studies show correlation, not causation. They're different.




Indeed they are. Unfortunately for the studies you quote, they didn't even have good correlation till they fudged the numbers and violated statistical principles.

Prove they "fudged" the numbers.
 
OK, when I have time I will check your Dr Sutgers. Often these studies show correlation, not causation. They're different.




Indeed they are. Unfortunately for the studies you quote, they didn't even have good correlation till they fudged the numbers and violated statistical principles.

Prove they "fudged" the numbers.

Tell you what. You bring your report here with the statistical tables and research model and I'll tear it apart for you.
 
Indeed they are. Unfortunately for the studies you quote, they didn't even have good correlation till they fudged the numbers and violated statistical principles.

Prove they "fudged" the numbers.

Tell you what. You bring your report here with the statistical tables and research model and I'll tear it apart for you.

Tell you what. I'm going to relax NOT take you on.

I'm here to have fun. I will express a position and tell you why I hold it and that's it. I could care less if you agree or not. I'm not here to prove anything.
 
Last edited:
Probably a wise move, but I'll indulge my friends, if you don't mind.

A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police.") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 <2001>.)

Debunking the '3 times more likely to be the victim' myth -- reprise - Democratic Underground

Secondly, no correlation was made between "independent" factors that actually may have been factors related to each other- they treated illicit drug use, having an arrest record, living alone or not, renting, having a gun, and a history of domestic abuse as independent variables without any relationship to each other. No collateral multivariate analysis was performed. The correlation to each control was not predicated on other factors, just gun ownership. They gave the same weight to a gun death in a household with someone with a previous arrest as to a gun death in a household where an intruder brought their own gun to a home invasion and shot the occupant (each weighting was independent, not cumulative). No correlation was explored for similar situations with the only difference being gun ownership.

Thirdly, there were significant differences between the study participants and the control. There was a 30% difference between home ownership vs renting between subjects and control, and a 15% difference in living alone or not. Only 48% of the control subjects were interviewed in person. Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls.

Finally, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may already be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood.

Further reading (some are related to Kellermann's previous work on the subject, just to show how tortured his conclusions are):

Dave Kopel on NRO

Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Its almost like he had a idea and created data to support his predetermined conclusion...
 
What an insensitive lout you are!

This just happened. Tell the people in the Clackamas Mall how disciplined you are about firearms. As if anyone there could give a shit.

How would you like to be Christmas shopping and have some jerk blow your family away?
 
Last edited:

So? You have ignored every list of defense use of firearms. Ohh and explain why you are not haranguing us about the gang kills in Chicago. More people are shot and killed in Chicago then in Afghanistan. And remind me what the law on ownership and carry are there?
Obviously WC got tired of being clowned with facts and tripped up with his own words, so he's just going to post stories sans comment.

:lol:
 

So? You have ignored every list of defense use of firearms. Ohh and explain why you are not haranguing us about the gang kills in Chicago. More people are shot and killed in Chicago then in Afghanistan. And remind me what the law on ownership and carry are there?

It's not my goal to list every defensive use of firearms in America. I'm sure there are some but if you had read the OP, I doubted PC's statement that millions occur every year. I'm posting a firearm murder or two every day; you have the right to post every defensive use of a weapon if you like. If PC is correct - 2,000,000 divided by 365 = a hell of a lot for you to choose from - I will offer my mea culpa.
 

So? You have ignored every list of defense use of firearms. Ohh and explain why you are not haranguing us about the gang kills in Chicago. More people are shot and killed in Chicago then in Afghanistan. And remind me what the law on ownership and carry are there?
Obviously WC got tired of being clowned with facts and tripped up with his own words, so he's just going to post stories sans comment.

:lol:

Two points: 1) you've attacked me and not my argument; 2) you've used an emoticon. Probable cause for me to assume you're a partisan hack and as dumb as a rock.
 

Forum List

Back
Top