Guns keep us safe in our homes?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Luddly Neddite, Dec 18, 2012.

  1. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    Certainly didn't help poor Nancy Lanza.

    Earlier, someone posted the stats that prove that owning guns makes it more likely that you'll be killed with your own gun.

    That's what happened to Nancy Lanza.
     
  2. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    Yes they have, MANY TIMES

    And the poor woman could of been killed with a steak knife, a ball bat, fist.

    So what's your point?
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2012
  3. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    53,216
    Thanks Received:
    8,455
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +20,829
    Yes, and the 22 Chinese children all lived through the knife attack. If that attacker had had a huge capacity magazine, they would all be dead too.

    Yes, of course, she could have been knifed in her sleep but she wasn't. Her own gun was used against her because that's the weapon she had taught her son to use and that was the weapon she made available to him.

    When are people going to care more about American lives than they do about having military guns like the bushmaster?

    Why aren't those dead children's lives more important than the ability of criminals and the mentally ill to be able to buy without a background check?

    WHY are people trying to so hard to defend the indefensible? WHY do rw's support domestic terrorism?
     
  4. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,818
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,360
    ok, posting about one incident in china is suppose to mean something

    beats me
     
  5. jtpr312
    Offline

    jtpr312 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,100
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Md
    Ratings:
    +251
    Piss off socilist.

    MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."
    This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2

    Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3

    The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5

    Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

    81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
    74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
    80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
    40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
    34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
    57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
    Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

    Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.


    2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
    3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
    4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
    5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
    6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
    7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.




    http://http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Luddite is a lying sack of Mr Maddow.

    NICS checks have been going on for almost 20 years now.

    FBI — Fact Sheet
     

Share This Page