In Britain, man executed, with gun in front of mums with children...

[Skull Pilot]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

so criminals shooting criminals

Just like most murders in this country

Public service killing

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

Because a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

So it makes about as much since as owning your own rabid pit bull because your neighbor has a rabid pit bull guarding his crack house.

the likelihood of my guns killing anyone in my family is ZERO tell me what 43 times ZERO is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Then why do you all need guns to protect yourselves? Why are you so full of fear?

Do you live in fear of an auto accident? Or do you just wear seatbelts as a fashion statement?

I rarely wear a seat belt

 

[fncceo]

Then why do you all need guns to protect yourselves? Why are you so full of fear?

Do you live in fear of an auto accident? Or do you just wear seatbelts as a fashion statement?

I rarely wear a seat belt

The be fair, I was just looking for an excuse to post that picture.

 

[pismoe]

such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime",

Neither are most people in the US.

Then why do you all need guns to protect yourselves? Why are you so full of fear?

---------------------------------- nothing to do with FEAR , Guns are one of the things that a PREPARED person has at the ready . A gun is the same as having a 'fire extinguisher' in the kitchen , smoke and fire detectors in the house and a spare tire in the car Esmeralda .

 

[2aguy]

Their gun crime is going up, ours is going down.

There's is relatively minor, ours is truly HORRIFIC. Chicago alone has more gun murders than the entire UK has murders.

Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives....

No, they don't. There are only 200 self-defense homicide by civilians and 900 shooting by cops, most of which probably weren't necessary.

It's laughable that you guys think that you pull your penis compensators out 1 million times but only kill a few hundred people.

wrong....knife murder in Chicago is more murder than happens in Britain....British criminals do not engage in murder....that is the difference. You want to ignore this fact because you have a phobia about guns...you will use any excuse to ban guns...they banned guns, they now have more gun crime.

 

[2aguy]

*sigh* Here we go again, pity 2aguy didn't know this was a gangland hit, the "victim" had been shot in 2010 and later arrested himself for possessing a firearm.

So, your point is, even in a country where private firearms are banned, we shouldn't be surprised if criminals have free access to them?

Private firearms are not banned over here, do keep up. Criminals have always had access to firearms, which they use mainly to protect themselves from other criminals with guns; it's something they picked up from America. The rest of us don't care that much if criminals shoot each other.

And that is the same thing that happens in the United States....70-80% of gun murder victims in the U.S. are criminals....and the shootings are confined to tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities.....meanwhile, good, normal Americans use their legal guns in the U.S. 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack, which has led to a 49% decrease in gun murder, a 75% decrease in gun crime and a 72% decrease in violent crime...

Meanwhile, in Britain, violent crime against normal people is going through the roof...

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

Blah, blah... From your own source, "A Home Office spokesman said the statistics contained in the Crime Survey of England and Wales - which asks people about their personal experiences, even if they have not reported offences to the police - provided a more accuerate picture and suggested that violent crime was actually at a record low.

The spokesman said: "Police reform is working with the latest ONS figures showing crimes traditionally measured by the (British Crime) Survey have fallen by a third since 2010 to a record low, with over 370,000 fewer violent crimes a year.""

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

Percentage figures are by and large, meaningless; i.e. a jump from 1 to 2 is a 100% increase.

Actual police numbers say different.....that is what those numbers show, asking people in low crime areas what their crime experience is tells you nothing about the real problem......you don't know what you are talking about....add to that the police under reporting crime and mislabeling crime so they can keep the real numbers lower and you have a real problem you obviously want to ignore.

 

[2aguy]

Their gun crime is going up, ours is going down.

There's is relatively minor, ours is truly HORRIFIC. Chicago alone has more gun murders than the entire UK has murders.

Americans use their guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack...saving lives....

No, they don't. There are only 200 self-defense homicide by civilians and 900 shooting by cops, most of which probably weren't necessary.

It's laughable that you guys think that you pull your penis compensators out 1 million times but only kill a few hundred people.

Moron....you think you are being clever but you aren't...... you are counting the 200 bodies on the ground, not the 1.1 million defensive uses of guns where the criminals run away, surrender, get shot and injured but not killed......

And again, get help.....every time we talk about guns you bring up the penis...there is really something off about you...get help.

 

[2aguy]

such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime",

Neither are most people in the US.

Then why do you all need guns to protect yourselves? Why are you so full of fear?

We aren't...we just understand human history and human nature. Europe murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children.....Russia 25 million, China 70 million......does any of that mean anything to you? Also, do you understand that every day, in every country, people are raped, robbed and murdered...do you understand that? And those victims did not know the day, the time or location of their attacks until it happened......and yet you would deny them the ability to stay safe from those attacks....

 

[2aguy]

Then why do you all need guns to protect yourselves? Why are you so full of fear?

Do you live in fear of an auto accident? Or do you just wear seatbelts as a fashion statement?

In Spain, only 10% of the people own guns. It has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Comparing an auto accident to a gun death is a false analogy, BTW. Learn how to use logic.

Spanish criminals don't commit murder as much........goody for you.... most of the United States is the same way. Our crime is isolated to very tiny areas of democrat party controlled cities....other than that there is very little crime...but crime still happens.... and you don't know where or when it is going to happen..

Would you prefer that a woman is raped or that she use a gun to stop it? Please, answer that question.

 

[pismoe]

they got 'penis' on the brain for some weird reason 2AGuy .

 

[2aguy]

Do you live in fear of an auto accident? Or do you just wear seatbelts as a fashion statement?

Seatbelts have a proven safety benefit.

Guns actually make living in America MORE dangerous.

Again- gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

wrong....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%....our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%...this is a fact...so you don't know what you are talking about....

And again, you lie with that 43 times myth....

Kellerman, the man who lied to make up that number had to change it to 2.7 times...and even then, he still lied, using the worst methods to get his information..

First, the study where he was forced to change that number then the information about how lousy his research actually was...

NEJM - Error

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

------------


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

 

[Theowl32]

Criminals have always had access to firearms

Then why is it so wrong for non-criminals to have firearms with which to defend themselves?

I never said it was wrong as such, just that most people here in the UK aren't victims of "gun crime", we're generally not inclined to reach for a gun to resolve our differences, it's a sign of civilisation, you know.

I had heard somewhere that the darkies are killing with machetes at an alarming rate.

Have a handle on that whole situation?

 

[Pilot1]

I doubt my house is going to burn down, as it hasn't for 35 years, but I still carry home owners insurance.

 

[2aguy]

I doubt my house is going to burn down, as it hasn't for 35 years, but I still carry home owners insurance.

Home owners insurance.....you must be terrified of fire.....you can bet the left wingers here have never had a house fire...so they never buy fire insurance....right?

 

[JoeB131]

the likelihood of my guns killing anyone in my family is ZERO tell me what 43 times ZERO is.

I had a friend who thought the same thing until her teenage kid killed himself with that gun they bought for protection.

 

[JoeB131]

We aren't...we just understand human history and human nature. Europe murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children.....Russia 25 million, China 70 million......does any of that mean anything to you?

Yes, and they had plenty of guns, but when the government came for the other guy, they said, Go ahead.

Germans had plenty of guns... not a one of them went out to defend their Jewish Neighbors... They were happy to see them go. Oh, after the war they felt bad about it, like children who got sick after eating too much candy.

Those "Good Germans" did use their guns when the allies invaded, thought... until the Allies confiscated all their guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Kellerman, the man who lied to make up that number had to change it to 2.7 times...and even then, he still lied, using the worst methods to get his information..

Kellerman never said anything of the sort.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Except that's not what he said. He said a "GUN IN THE HOME" is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy...

Now, if you take out the 39 suicides, then you get 4 homicides and accidents to every gun that kills a bad guy... this is the fun game gun nuts play.

 

[Skull Pilot]

the likelihood of my guns killing anyone in my family is ZERO tell me what 43 times ZERO is.

I had a friend who thought the same thing until her teenage kid killed himself with that gun they bought for protection.

Suicides don't count never did never will if there wasn't a gun in the house the kid could have committed suicide in any of a hundred other ways