Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows
I guess you can read anything you want into these studies whether it's true or not. Have a good day I'm done with you.No.....I have pointed out the anti-gun fanaticism of both hemenway and kellerman....
Kellerman taught them how to make up those statistics using criminal, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers as their sample groups.......hemenway did it too....as I showed you with his study.
I guess you can read anything you want into these studies whether it's true or not. Have a good day I'm done with you.
They were families, fellow human beings and Americans, sorry they don't live up to your standards of what a family should be. You are the only one who is toxic around here. They didn't set out to pick anyone these are the statistics.Not reading anything into the studies...I am showing you exactly how they used the choice of the most toxic, damaged groups to get the results they wanted.....
They were families, fellow human beings and Americans, sorry they don't live up to your standards of what a family should be. You are the only one who is toxic around here. They didn't set out to pick anyone these are the statistics.
I went to the NRA site, asked about what studies they've done and it turns out their data is very badly biased. They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them. That's the bottom line I'm trying to let you know. Every study on guns ( with the exception of studies done by gun lobby people ) demonstrates one simple truth. " People living in homes with guns there's a substantially higher risk of being fatally assaulted. " No matter how you try to spin that, it doesn't work.No...not even close...when you are doing a study on gun ownership being dangerous...but you focus your study on criminals, drug addicts, alcoholics and domestic abusers...while ignoring all the normal gun owners, it simply shows you have a goal, and your study is intent on reaching that goal.
I went to the NRA site, asked about what studies they've done and it turns out their data is very badly biased. They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them. That's the bottom line I'm trying to let you know. Every study on guns ( with the exception of studies done by gun lobby people ) demonstrates one simple truth. " People living in homes with guns there's a substantially higher risk of being fatally assaulted. " No matter how you try to spin that, it doesn't work.
Called out by whom ?, the NRA ?, That's a joke, and not a good one.Nope......when you do a study and your focus group are violent criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and domestic abusers, as the "norm," for gun owners, you have an anti-gun agenda......Kellerman and hemingway were both called out on this.......
That’s clearly a lie.They tried to say homes that had guns in them or safer than homes that did not have guns in them.
Bottom line is the truth has to make a difference.That’s clearly a lie.
And the fact that homes with guns are less safe isn’t being used as ‘justification’ for firearm regulation – that’s also a lie.
Conservatives need to stop with the lies and slippery slope fallacies – guns aren’t going to be ‘banned,’ guns aren’t going to be ‘confiscated.’
Called out by whom ?, the NRA ?, That's a joke, and not a good one.
That’s not going to happen – nor should it.The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.
Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.By other researchers.....especially Kellerman....as my linked articles on him showed....which is why he went back and did his study over...the first study he said you were 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun in your home.....other researchers called him out for his shoddy work, he did the study over and came out with 2.7 times more likely.....and yet he still used the worst cases for his focus group...
Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
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;
------------
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
While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.
This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.
Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*
As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6
However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study.
Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."6
Also....
https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf
3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25
The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors.
A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range.
After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership.
Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.
Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care.
Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.
Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.
Even when they were called out for exaggerated data as you suggest. The researchers that questioned that data still confirmed that it is more deadly to have weapons in the home than to not. Which proves what I've been saying all along.
So far you've beaten the odds. I hope the day never comes for you, when you or your wife or your children or your grandchildren are accidentally shot with one of those guns you own. The only good that will come out of that is you will finally realize guns were a mistake to begin with.Yeah....his study was a sham........and you think he should be trusted after that?
Here.....18 studies that show Americans use their legal guns for self defense......
A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense
GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys
Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)
DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)
L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)
Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)
2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.
CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million averaged over those years.( no cops, no military)
Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million
--------------------
Bordua...1977...1,414,544
DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)
Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)
Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)
Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)
DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)
Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."
(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])
Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer
-------------------------------------------
Ohio...1982...771,043
Gallup...1991...777,152
Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)
Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..
2021 national firearms survey..
The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey
So far you've beaten the odds. I hope the day never comes for you, when you or your wife or your children or your grandchildren are accidentally shot with one of those guns you own. The only good that will come out of that is you will finally realize guns were a mistake to begin with.
Like I said, I have no fears in my life, I have no regrets, hope you can get to a place where you can say the same. Goodbye.Tell that to any of the people in those 18 studies who used their legal guns to save lives....
Then this....the lives saved by legal guns and their owners...
600 million guns in private hands......over 21.25 million Americans can carry guns legally in public for self defense.........
American use those legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, stabbings, beatings, robberies, and murders, as well as also stopping mass public shootings when they are allowed to have their legal guns with them...
Of the gun murder deaths....over 70-80% of the victims are not regular Americans....they are criminals...murdered by other criminals in primarily democrat party controlled cities....where the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians have released them over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested for felony, illegal gun possession and violent crimes with guns...that's on you and your political party...not normal gun owners.
Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, robberies, beatings, knifings, murders......according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million times according to the Department of Justice.
Lives saved....based on research? By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?
Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct
that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—
Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns
Like I said, I have no fears in my life, I have no regrets, hope you can get to a place where you can say the same. Goodbye.
Apples and oranges again. Fire alarms do not kill people.I am at that place.......you guys always use "fear," to describe gun owners......we have as much fear about walking around with our concealed carry gun, or with a gun in the home as we have when we buy a fire alarm for the house......
