A new group of gun owners? Native American women…no one is coming to save you. Learn it, live it.

[2aguy]

More and more Americans are buying, and carrying guns. As democrats destroy the police, and as they create revolving door policies for releasing violent criminals, more Americans are gunning up to save themselves and their families….

Now..a brand new category of gun owner….

Native American women….

People are refusing to be victims. Women are refusing to be victims anymore. The gun is a great equalizer, right? You talk about gun ownership, it doesn’t matter how big or small or whatever you may be, the gun at least evens out the fight,” Talachy said.

“We talk about disparity of force. Women, you know, are biologically smaller than men or don’t have the muscle structure that men do. But that doesn’t give them any reason not to be able to defend themselves the same way any human being should be able to,” he added. […]

Embracing the Great Equalizer: Native American women taking up firearms classes for self-defense

bearingarms.com

 

[EMH]

Next group to arm heavily = native Hawaiians

Who can blame them?

Targeted for deliberate intentional mass murder, and lied to and told it was global "warming" despite the fact that Hawaii has NO WARMING in its temperature data....

 

[Votto]

Next group to arm heavily = native Hawaiians

Who can blame them?

Targeted for deliberate intentional mass murder, and lied to and told it was global "warming" despite the fact that Hawaii has NO WARMING in its temperature data....

Maybe they can get their island back from the Nazi Progressives like Oprah who buys up all their land.

 

[1srelluc]

Good, young res woman up and disappear all the time and it's hardly ever reported.

 

[EMH]

Maybe they can get their island back from the Nazi Progressives like Oprah who buys up all their land.

I doubt Oprah was involved. Gen Milley and Chris Wray were....

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, more guns in a community plagued by poverty and alcoholism is definitely going to have a positive effect.

 

[Blues Man]

Yes, more guns in a community plagued by poverty and alcoholism is definitely going to have a positive effect.

And where women are abducted and murdered far more than the national averages.

And chances are they aren't being abducted and murdered by other Native Americans

 

[JoeB131]

And where women are abducted and murdered far more than the national averages.

And chances are they aren't being abducted and murdered by other Native Americans

We've been over this.

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

 

[Blues Man]

We've been over this.

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

And we've debunked that bullshit a long time ago

 

[2aguy]

We've been over this.

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

No, you have lied about that over and over again and been corrected over it again and again

The 43 times number is a lie and the guy who came up with it evwn chqnged it when he was called out on it by other researchers.....and even then he still used corrupted sample groups

 

[JoeB131]

No, you have lied about that over and over again and been corrected over it again and again

The 43 times number is a lie and the guy who came up with it evwn chqnged it when he was called out on it by other researchers.....and even then he still used corrupted sample groups

You mean he CLARIFIED between suicides and murders... but the numbers still suck.

Okay, a gun in the household is 39 times more likely to be used in a suicide than kill a bad guy and 4 times more likely to be used in a domestic homicide than kill a bad guy.

Doesn't really make it sound better.

 

[2aguy]

You mean he CLARIFIED between suicides and murders... but the numbers still suck.

Okay, a gun in the household is 39 times more likely to be used in a suicide than kill a bad guy and 4 times more likely to be used in a domestic homicide than kill a bad guy.

Doesn't really make it sound better.

No...he didn't....you are a liar.

• The authors' interpretation of their results is an example of "data torturing" (1). Specifically, Kellermann and his colleagues are guilty of Procrustean data torturing, which is defined as "deciding on the hypothesis to be proved [in this case, owning a gun increases the risk of homicide] and making the data fit the hypothesis."
• 
  
• 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 or that, by the authors' own admission, 11 of the case subjects were killed by private citizens acting legally in self-defense. In other words, some instances of gun ownership prevented the owner or family members from becoming victims -- indeed, may have even saved their lives.
  What the article did show is that illicit drug use, alcoholism, and a pattern of violent behavior are risk factors for homicide involving firearms. What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor. In other words, it is not the gun (an inanimate object) that is the problem but its inappropriate use.
  --------
  Additional analysis of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset shows that just over 4½ percent of all homicides, in the three counties Kellermann chose to study, involved victims being killed with a gun kept in their own home (see derivation). This supports the conclusion that people murdered with a gun kept in their own home are a small minority of all homicides, precisely the opposite of what an uncritical reader of Kellermann's study would likely conclude.
  --------
  

  Who's at higher risk for homicide?​

  (The percentages in this paragraph are based on an examination of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset.)
  As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded. (That's 3.5% of all matched cases. Likewise, the previously mentioned 4½ percent figure of all homicides involving a victim killed by a gun in the home falls to 2.1%.)
  These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides.
  
  As a Dr. Pat Baranello writes in a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor (source)."Kellermann's response (contained in the same source) although a true statement, sidesteps the letter writer's point. Kellerman's response was, "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide."

Correspondence -- NEJM 1994; 330: 365-368 -- February 3, 1994




Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

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;

=================

Who's at higher risk for homicide?​

(The percentages in this paragraph are based on an examination of Kellermann's ICPSR dataset.)


As mentioned, a reasonable estimate of gun victims killed by a gun from the victim's home is 34%. However, this number drops to 12.6% when households having a prior arrestee are excluded, and drops further to 7% when households with prior arrests, illicit drug use, or a history of violence are excluded. (That's 3.5% of all matched cases. Likewise, the previously mentioned 4½ percent figure of all homicides involving a victim killed by a gun in the home falls to 2.1%.)


These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides.
As a Dr. Pat Baranello writes in a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "What the article failed to address is that gun ownership by responsible people is not a risk factor (source)." Kellermann's response (contained in the same source) although a true statement, sidesteps the letter writer's point. Kellerman's response was, "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide."
Households with persons having a criminal history or violence prone personality are at an increased risk for homicide, and a gun in the hands of these kinds of persons also most likely independently increases homicide risk more so than it does for law-abiding gun owning households.
Mathematically speaking, logistic regression calculates only one co-efficient per risk factor (which can be converted into an odds-ratio). If a gun in the hands of persons with criminal records or a history of violence are much more prone to commit homicide than unarmed persons without those risk factors, and the large majority of cases in a regression model had a history of violence and arrests, the odds-ratio is going to reflect the increased risk of a gun in the hands of a volatile group, rather than representing a risk factor for the general population. It's also possible that the risk of homicide by law-abiding persons could be extremely small, yet those same people with guns have a much higher risk of homicide, resulting in an odds ratio higher than what Kellermann's final model showed. Kellermann's study simply can't tell us which is the case (or neither).
Kellermann's defenders may try to claim that a link was found between guns and homicide for all 14 subgroups he studied (p. 1089), however each one of those subgroups still contained a majority of high-risk cases. (For an example to the contrary, even though living alone was found to be riskier than owning a gun, examining the ICPSR dataset shows there were 46 matched-pair cases who lived alone and had no history of arrest or violent activity. 15 cases were gun owning households versus 19 of the controls, giving a crude odds-ratio of 0.688. In this group, gunowners had a 31.2% lower risk of being murdered. But these numbers aren't conclusive of gun ownership being protective due to the lack of controls for any other factors that influence homicide victimization. It's simply an example of what might be a low-risk subgroup. Further study would be necessary.)

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

==============

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.


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
======

Read more: CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

In 1993,Dr. Kellermann, who was funded in 1991 by a CDC grant, had to soften the ’43 times’ number to ‘2.7 times.’ He concluded, “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” Kellerman thought the 2.7 number would not sound quite so impossible.
These papers, and many others from the medical community, were criticized by researchers who statistically showed that Kellermann’s conclusions were wildly wrong. Kellermann used a technique that depended on matching subjects and controls, except that the subject and control groups did not match. The subject group lived a very high-risk, alcohol and drug-filled lifestyle, while the controls did not.
Kellermann had singled out people who exist at the edges of society. Kellermann did not study normal gun owners, just criminals who had guns, but he exaggerated his findings.

Because of this confusion, Kellerman helped change American gun politics by injecting unwarranted fear into the gun debate. Too many journalists just read the conclusion of a “scientific” paper, and skip over the rest as too complex for them.

Despite these serious methodological problems, Kellermann’s results are still widely accepted in the public health field.​

Public-health advocates appear willing to run with any published study, regardless of how weak its methods, just so long as the findings are congenial to their assumption that guns are dangerous.
Then, in 1996, after Congress requested Kellermann’s original data, which he failed to release, Congress cut funding to the CDC for advocacy research. No funding was cut for medical research, just advocacy research.

CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust
==========
====

Gun in the home?

Whose gun?​

In a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "The students of Dr. Mark Ferris's Mathematical Statistics 460" class ask, "In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?" The question is a relevant one since, as the letter also notes, the study's authors had stated in part based on their findings that "people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes [p. 1090]." In other words, advising people against keeping a gun in the home doesn't make sense unless it causes an increase in homicide risk.


Kellermann's first response to the students was incorrect: "Ninety-three percent of the homicides involving firearms occurred in homes where a gun was kept, according to the proxy respondents." In a follow-up letter(four years later) Kellermann acknowledges his error, but still fails to directly answer the question.


Kellermann's own data suggests that for all gun homicides of matched cases no more than 34% were murdered by a gun from the victim's home. (GunCite's analysis of Kellermann's data.) (The data, such as it is, is available at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi/archive.prl?study=6898).

34% is probably on the charitable side since it assumes all family member or intimate homicides were commited by offenders living with the victim which is highly unlikely given that not all intimates (as defined in the Kellermann dataset: spouse, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, and lovers) were likely to have lived with an adult victim.


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 [p. 252].") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 [2001].)

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

 

[JoeB131]

No...he didn't....you are a liar.

Oh, wow, always fun to watch you spooge your NRA propaganda, bud.

In 1993,Dr. Kellermann, who was funded in 1991 by a CDC grant, had to soften the ’43 times’ number to ‘2.7 times.’ He concluded, “Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” Kellerman thought the 2.7 number would not sound quite so impossible.

He didn't soften the number, he clarified.

Once he took out suicides and accidents, you get to the 2.7 number.

The suicides and accidents still happened, that was the point.

So it is 43 times more likely a gun in the home will be used in a suicide, a domestic homicide or an accident than the VERY RARE cases where they kill bad guys.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, wow, always fun to watch you spooge your NRA propaganda, bud.




He didn't soften the number, he clarified.

Once he took out suicides and accidents, you get to the 2.7 number.

The suicides and accidents still happened, that was the point.

So it is 43 times more likely a gun in the home will be used in a suicide, a domestic homicide or an accident than the VERY RARE cases where they kill bad guys.

It is a wonder how you became such a vile human being……..he lied….got caught and then still tried to push the lie by keeping flawed groups in his research…a typical, anti-gun researcher.

My links give the details on his lying for anyone interested in the truth, facts and reality.

 

[westwall]

More and more Americans are buying, and carrying guns. As democrats destroy the police, and as they create revolving door policies for releasing violent criminals, more Americans are gunning up to save themselves and their families….

Now..a brand new category of gun owner….

Native American women….

People are refusing to be victims. Women are refusing to be victims anymore. The gun is a great equalizer, right? You talk about gun ownership, it doesn’t matter how big or small or whatever you may be, the gun at least evens out the fight,” Talachy said.

“We talk about disparity of force. Women, you know, are biologically smaller than men or don’t have the muscle structure that men do. But that doesn’t give them any reason not to be able to defend themselves the same way any human being should be able to,” he added. […]

Embracing the Great Equalizer: Native American women taking up firearms classes for self-defense

bearingarms.com

Native American women have ALWAYS been gun owners.

Ever since Wonded Knee.

Never again.

 

[JoeB131]

It is a wonder how you became such a vile human being……..he lied….got caught and then still tried to push the lie by keeping flawed groups in his research…a typical, anti-gun researcher.

My links give the details on his lying for anyone interested in the truth, facts and reality.

Look, man, I know that the worst thing the gun fetishists want is for people to realize how dangerous a gun in the house is.

 

[Blues Man]

You mean he CLARIFIED between suicides and murders... but the numbers still suck.

Okay, a gun in the household is 39 times more likely to be used in a suicide than kill a bad guy and 4 times more likely to be used in a domestic homicide than kill a bad guy.

Doesn't really make it sound better.

 

[Blues Man]

Look, man, I know that the worst thing the gun fetishists want is for people to realize how dangerous a gun in the house is.

Literally tens of millions of people have guns in their homes if your bullshit stats were true out murder rate would be at least 10 times higher

 

[JoeB131]

Literally tens of millions of people have guns in their homes if your bullshit stats were true out murder rate would be at least 10 times higher

Okay, let's look at the murder rate of the US vs. other G-7 Countries.

Gun homicide rate in G7 countries 2019 | Statista

From 2013 to 2019, the United States had a gun homicide rate of 4.38 per 100,000 residents, the most out of any other G7 country.

www.statista.com

As they say in Latin, The thing Speaks for itself.

 

[Blues Man]

Okay, let's look at the murder rate of the US vs. other G-7 Countries.

Gun homicide rate in G7 countries 2019 | Statista

From 2013 to 2019, the United States had a gun homicide rate of 4.38 per 100,000 residents, the most out of any other G7 country.

www.statista.com

As they say in Latin, The thing Speaks for itself.

View attachment 827794

So what?

Our murder rate is about the same as it was 70 years ago.

If guns caused murders it would be significantly higher
If gun laws stopped murders t would be significantly lower.