CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[kaz]

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

No one does denial like we do, you're a prime example shoog.

How is pointing out that you want to say lying is fundamental to American culture and I point out it is fundamental to the human race......you just hate America, so that clouds your understanding of reality.

Why is it that some rabid frothy mouthed folk claiming to love America can't bear to look at it realistically to improve society for all?

A land based on liberty and freedom for all that engaged in genocide, slavery, and initially freedom for wealthy white males only is/was quite clearly based on lies. Still is. Whether you can bear to confront it or not.

You need to look at all human history

 

[Fenton Lum]

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

No one does denial like we do, you're a prime example shoog.

How is pointing out that you want to say lying is fundamental to American culture and I point out it is fundamental to the human race......you just hate America, so that clouds your understanding of reality.

Why is it that some rabid frothy mouthed folk claiming to love America can't bear to look at it realistically to improve society for all?

A land based on liberty and freedom for all that engaged in genocide, slavery, and initially freedom for wealthy white males only is/was quite clearly based on lies. Still is. Whether you can bear to confront it or not.

You need to look at all human history

Have, thanks. That's always the fall back argument th
at was fecklessly attempted earlier by the poster being responded to; "well yeah but everyone else was doing it too!".

Ok, then just drop the exceptionalism bit.

 

[GaryDog]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

 

[GaryDog]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

Orlando sure seemed like an assault to me. Pretty damned murdery for it not to be an "assault".

 

[Fenton Lum]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

Careful, some halfwit will claim his tiny little wife can't manage a shotgun for home defense and will suggest the car is her best option.

 

[2aguy]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

And the guns purpose is not to kill either...in fact, it often does it's job...keeping the owner safe from hunger and violent attack, without firing a shot......

 

[GaryDog]

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

And the guns purpose is not to kill either...in fact, it often does it's job...keeping the owner safe from hunger and violent attack, without firing a shot......

Safe from hunger? Right, because we're all just foraging in the USA to eat.

Its primary purpose is to kill. Not a single person who owns a gun would deny that. If it acts merely as a deterrent that's because it was NOT USED.

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

 

[2aguy]

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

And the guns purpose is not to kill either...in fact, it often does it's job...keeping the owner safe from hunger and violent attack, without firing a shot......

Safe from hunger? Right, because we're all just foraging in the USA to eat.

Its primary purpose is to kill. Not a single person who owns a gun would deny that. If it acts merely as a deterrent that's because it was NOT USED.

And they would be wrong...the primary purpose of a gun is to keep the owner alive....and in our modern society a gun often doesn't have to be fired to achieve that.....they didn't even shoot the guy in Dallas...they used bomb...all those guns and they boxed the shooter in...how many of them actually fired their weapons?

 

[2aguy]

yes they did........

Lies abound on all sides, lying is fundamental to American culture.

To humans......all around the world...

No one does denial like we do, you're a prime example shoog.

How is pointing out that you want to say lying is fundamental to American culture and I point out it is fundamental to the human race......you just hate America, so that clouds your understanding of reality.

Why is it that some rabid frothy mouthed folk claiming to love America can't bear to look at it realistically to improve society for all?

A land based on liberty and freedom for all that engaged in genocide, slavery, and initially freedom for wealthy white males only is/was quite clearly based on lies. Still is. Whether you can bear to confront it or not.

No..we look at America realistically, you look at it unrealistically....that is why you are a lefty....

 

[GaryDog]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

Doesn't seem to translate to real life...

 

[GaryDog]

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

And the guns purpose is not to kill either...in fact, it often does it's job...keeping the owner safe from hunger and violent attack, without firing a shot......

Safe from hunger? Right, because we're all just foraging in the USA to eat.

Its primary purpose is to kill. Not a single person who owns a gun would deny that. If it acts merely as a deterrent that's because it was NOT USED.

And they would be wrong...the primary purpose of a gun is to keep the owner alive....and in our modern society a gun often doesn't have to be fired to achieve that.....they didn't even shoot the guy in Dallas...they used bomb...all those guns and they boxed the shooter in...how many of them actually fired their weapons?

So it's officially no longer "good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun"? Now it takes a bomb?

LOL @ you

 

[2aguy]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

You guys made Newton a gun free zone....you guys made the Aurora theater a gun free zone....you guys made that church a gun free zone...

In each one of those cases....the ones you just mentioned...the shooters, from their notes....picked them out because they were gun free zones.......they decided not to attack other targets that they discovered were not gun free, then picked gun free zones.....

You are the problem..not the NRA...

 

[2aguy]

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

Doesn't seem to translate to real life...

Sorry.....they include suicide...that is how they get their numbers up...suicide doesn't count....and you need to link to the actual article so we can actually discuss what they said....

 

[2aguy]

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

Doesn't seem to translate to real life...

And of course you are wrong....

ICYMI: CNN Went Off On Texas' Open Carry Law During Their Dallas Shooting Coverage

Texas, especially Dallas, has seen their crime rates hit record lows. In Dallas, the murder rate fell to its lowest levels since the city started taking crime data in 1930. Overall, the Lone Star State, through criminal justice reform, has reduced crime levels to their lowest rates since 1968 (via Dallas Morning News):



Dallas’ 2014 murder rate was its lowest since 1930 — the year Bonnie and Clyde met at a West Dallas house party.


And the Dallas Police Department’s preliminary count of 116 murders last year — there is one unexplained death awaiting a ruling — would be the lowest yearly murder tally since 1965. It’s also a notable drop from the 143 murders in 2013 and it’s fewer than half the murders recorded in 2004.

Police officials say their crime-fighting and crime-prevention strategies have played a major role in reducing homicides, the rarest of major crimes. Others say outside variables — medical advancements, changing demographics and better social services — deserve much of the credit.

Even with this dreadful shooting in Dallas, the city has only seen one other shooting involving police officers, and that didn’t result in a fatality on either side. The crime rate in Texas is still dropping too (via Texas Tribune):



Urban crime rates are at historic lows across the country, and in Texas they are still dropping, according to an analysis of crime rates in the 30 largest U.S cities.


Between 2014 and 2015, the five largest cities in Texas saw an average drop of 6.5 percent in the overall crime rate per 100,000 residents, according to the analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. Among the nation’s top cities, crime rates remained stagnant during this time, dropping by only 0.1 percent.

With an almost 10 percent drop in its crime rate, Austin saw the sharpest decrease in Texas and the nation.

 

[2aguy]

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

And the guns purpose is not to kill either...in fact, it often does it's job...keeping the owner safe from hunger and violent attack, without firing a shot......

Safe from hunger? Right, because we're all just foraging in the USA to eat.

Its primary purpose is to kill. Not a single person who owns a gun would deny that. If it acts merely as a deterrent that's because it was NOT USED.

And they would be wrong...the primary purpose of a gun is to keep the owner alive....and in our modern society a gun often doesn't have to be fired to achieve that.....they didn't even shoot the guy in Dallas...they used bomb...all those guns and they boxed the shooter in...how many of them actually fired their weapons?

So it's officially no longer "good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun"? Now it takes a bomb?

LOL @ you

No.....you forgot...Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop bad guys.......the majority of times not firing a shot...the bad guy runs away or gives up......

 

[Skull Pilot]

Police around the nation have for years begged for assault weapons like those used in Dallas to be taken off the streets. They're overwhelmed.

If you claim to support the police, why not support them by supporting common sense regulation of these weapons and clips, etc?

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Yeah it's always best to tackle the 1% of the problem while ignoring the 99%

It's always better to let the most emotionally charged issue take precedence

 

[2aguy]

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

Doesn't seem to translate to real life...

And of course.....they have to include suicides...

Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

 

[Skull Pilot]

To play devil's advocate, when you have a loaded gun in your house you're 5x more likely to end up shooting a loved one or yourself than a home invader. So....there's that.

Please show us a link to the kellerman study.....or hemenway..another anti gunner who fudges his research....

It seems I remember reading, of that fraudulent statistic, that it even counted, in some instances, as guns “in the home”, guns that were brought into the home by criminals, in the course of attacking the occupants of the home.

Nope.

Firearms in US homes as a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality

Abstract
This study used national data and a matched case-control design to estimate the relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot associated with having firearms in the home. A sample of adults who died in the United States in 1993 from unintentional gunshot injuries was drawn from the National Mortality Followback Survey (NMFS) (n=84). Twenty controls were sought for each case from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and matched to the cases by sex, age group, race, and region of residence (n=1451). Subjects were classified as having or not having guns in the home based interview responses. The relative risk of death by an unintentional gunshot injury, comparing subjects living in homes with and without guns, was 3.7 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.9–7.2). Adjustment for covariates resulted in little change in the effect estimates. There was evidence of a dose-response effect: compared to subjects living in homes with no guns, the relative risk was 3.4 (95% CI=1.5–7.6) among subjects with one gun and 3.9 (95% CI=2.0–7.8) among subjects with multiple guns in the home. Having handguns in the home was associated with the largest effect estimates. Tests of homogeneity showed that the effect estimates did not vary significantly across categories of the matching variables. Firearms in the home appear to be a risk factor for unintentional gunshot fatality among adults. The magnitude of the observed effect estimates should be compared with those from additional studies.

People with cars are more likely to get in car accidents than people without cars

Cars' primary purpose is not killing.

Neither is a gun's
A gun's one and only function is to fire a projectile.

The human element decides if it kills or not

 

[2aguy]

They have?

Do you have some proof of this "begging"?

BTW people even criminals do not walk the streets with "assault" rifles. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals as they are more easily concealable

Assault weapons are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.

An AR 15 or any other semiautomatic for that matter is not an "assault" weapon

And mass shootings represent 1% or less of all murders so let's concentrate on that and disregard the other 99%

that's always a good strategy

I understand. Let's not be concerned about those children gunned down in Newtown, the moviegoers gunned down in Aurora, the church goers gunned down in Charleston, the gays gunned down in Orlando, or five cops gunned down in Dallas.

It's like the NRA and gun supporters have brought Hillary's oft- misquoted "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?" to a whole new level.

Each year, according to a study from the bill clinton Department of Justice, Americans use guns every year 1,500,000 times to stop violent crime and to save lives...even to stop mass shooters....

in 2014....8,124 people were murdered with guns.......including mass shootings....

1,500,000 vs. 8,124

can you tell which number is bigger?

Also.....as more Americans have owned and actually carried guns.... over 13,000,000 people carrying guns now for self defense..........the gun crime rate has gone down, not up....

in mass shootings that were not gun free zones, the lives saved were greater than the lives taken......

even in Dallas.....5 people dead with immediate armed resistance....

Orlando...300 unarmed people...49 killed....

Gun free zones kill.....

Doesn't seem to translate to real life...

And actual depth to this discussion....

Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?



Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship.

But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.