CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[2aguy]

So, are you now trying to argue that nobody has to defend themselves ever?

You arrived at THAT conclusion from sitting on a toilet bowl and grimacing a bit.

How often have YOU had to defend yourself with a military-style type of weapon? Come on, be just a tiny bit honest.

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight thwm off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

I fail to see how that's sick. It's logical. If a thug felt like robbing someone, or just killing a person or people, then they'd want a weapon like that. It's better to be prepared than to just assume it would never happen.

That's one take.

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.

That is a lie.....the study that claimed that did not take into account normal gun owners....they went to 2 counties...and concentrated their research on homes with drug, alcohol and criminal family members.......they didn't even try to do an objective study.....they also included drug dealers and customers as Acquaintences for the sake of the study......

You are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

So, are you now trying to argue that nobody has to defend themselves ever?

You arrived at THAT conclusion from sitting on a toilet bowl and grimacing a bit.

How often have YOU had to defend yourself with a military-style type of weapon? Come on, be just a tiny bit honest.

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight thwm off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

I fail to see how that's sick. It's logical. If a thug felt like robbing someone, or just killing a person or people, then they'd want a weapon like that. It's better to be prepared than to just assume it would never happen.

That's one take.

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....

 

[Muhammed]

MOD EDIT - Someone forgot they were in the FZ .....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can you explain to me how "shall not be infringed." is somehow unclear or even debatable?

Wrong-wingers take the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean, in stark opposition to what it clearly says. It's how they find a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies in cold blood, and to force others to support one's immoral sexual perversions, while failing to recognize such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right not to have one's property taken without just compensation or due process of law, and the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[nat4900]

wrong...the cops I know want civilians to own rifles and pistols.......

So they can shoot people who carry a gun when stopping them for a traffic violation?

 

[2aguy]

wrong...the cops I know want civilians to own rifles and pistols.......

So they can shoot people who carry a gun when stopping them for a traffic violation?

Haven't you been banned from the CDZ yet?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In 2014 rifles of all kinds murdered 248 people....

Knives mirdered [sic] 1,567

No, they did not.

A rifle is a mindless, inanimate tool. So is a knife. Neither is capable of murdering anyone.

Only a sentient being can commit murder. Murders do not happen because of the presence of a weapon; they happen because a human being makes the choice to kill another human being.

 

[nat4900]

MOD EDIT - Someone forgot they were in the FZ .....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[GaryDog]

You arrived at THAT conclusion from sitting on a toilet bowl and grimacing a bit.

How often have YOU had to defend yourself with a military-style type of weapon? Come on, be just a tiny bit honest.

I came to that conclusion because you're advocating a ban on Assault Rifles, meaning criminals can use them and law-abiding citizens can't. You're essentially weakening citizens so they're easier targets for criminals.

People defend themselves a lot more often than you seem to think.

So, you're expecting a criminal (or the dreaded Federal black-booted thugs) to use assault weapons to invade your house....and you're ready to fight thwm off with YOUR assault rifle.....is THAT the scenario your sick mind is envisioning?

I fail to see how that's sick. It's logical. If a thug felt like robbing someone, or just killing a person or people, then they'd want a weapon like that. It's better to be prepared than to just assume it would never happen.

That's one take.

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.

And my 3 decades of gun ownership show I am not likely to shoot anyone in my house so what's 5 times ZERO?

"Anecdotes" is plural for bullshit.

 

[GaryDog]

MOD EDIT - Someone forgot they were in the FZ .....

 

[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.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Nevermind that it's worked in every major industrialized country on earth. Except ours.

Cuz, you know. Murica.

I guess if you get REALLY high and then read the statistics, then they could say that.

Or you could just read them.

Weren't you the one trying to explain to me how evolution is made up and the bible true? Yeah, go play.

No, I'm not. I haven't claimed to believe one or the other, I only said that scientists working for the government lie to us(Much like everyone else working for the government).

Every time gun laws are made more strict, the crime rate goes up. Chicago is a good example.

 

[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?

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Nevermind that it's worked in every major industrialized country on earth. Except ours.

Cuz, you know. Murica.

I guess if you get REALLY high and then read the statistics, then they could say that.

Or you could just read them.

Weren't you the one trying to explain to me how evolution is made up and the bible true? Yeah, go play.

No, I'm not. I haven't claimed to believe one or the other, I only said that scientists working for the government lie to us(Much like everyone else working for the government).

Every time gun laws are made more strict, the crime rate goes up. Chicago is a good example.

No, actually that's terrible example. The gun laws are very lax in neighboring Indiana and the Chicago suburbs. That's where the guns come from. Chicago is actually an exception to the rule. In states where there are stricter gun laws, there are fewer gun homicides and suicides.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Thinking that a ban on assault weapons would somehow get them out of the hands of criminals, who by definition don't follow the law, is not common sense, it's lack thereof. The government in question would only be weakening the ability of citizens to defend themselves, while criminals would continue being able to use them. We've already had MANY stupid threads like this.

Nevermind that it's worked in every major industrialized country on earth. Except ours.

Cuz, you know. Murica.

I guess if you get REALLY high and then read the statistics, then they could say that.

Or you could just read them.

Weren't you the one trying to explain to me how evolution is made up and the bible true? Yeah, go play.

No, I'm not. I haven't claimed to believe one or the other, I only said that scientists working for the government lie to us(Much like everyone else working for the government).

Every time gun laws are made more strict, the crime rate goes up. Chicago is a good example.

No, actually that's terrible example. The gun laws are very lax in neighboring Indiana and the Chicago suburbs. That's where the guns come from. Chicago is actually an exception to the rule. In states where there are stricter gun laws, there are fewer gun homicides and suicides.

Give me one example of gun laws actually lowering the crime rate directly. You won't be able to, because it defies all logic.

 

[boedicca]

It's already illegal for people to buy guns in the black market, which is where most criminals get theirs

Well, hopefully criminals will send your ilk a "thank you" card for making their purchase of a deadly, military-style weapon
so fucking easy and LEGAL...

It's pretty easy to shiv someone with a perfectly legal knife, bub.

Or to bomb them with a perfectly legal pressure cooker, too.

 

[boedicca]

If they are criminals, then they should fail the background check process, bub...and not be able to legally purchase a gun.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious........Criminals are labeled criminals the day AFTER they commit a crime....The day before the criminal act, the individual is just another citizen exercising his or her right to LEGALLY purchase a military style deadly weapon......thanks to you and your ilk (and, of course, the NRA)

So, what you are really advocating is that we pre-convict law-abiding people by taking away their 2nd Amendment rights.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[boedicca]

If they are criminals, then they should fail the background check process, bub...and not be able to legally purchase a gun.

Well, thanks for stating the obvious........Criminals are labeled criminals the day AFTER they commit a crime....The day before the criminal act, the individual is just another citizen exercising his or her right to LEGALLY purchase a military style deadly weapon......thanks to you and your ilk (and, of course, the NRA)

Wrong......of the gun murder in this country 90% of the killers have long criminal records and histories of violence...they are not normal people who just decided to commit a crime.......that isn't how it works.

Most homicides are committed by gang members.

 

[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.

It does not mention in the abstract controlling for drug use, alcohol use, history of police interaction at the home, criminal record or history of violence....those are the actual factors that count......notice they didn't mention any of those factors....and I am not paying for the study....

If you control for those, and then add the gun.....you don't have a gun problem....

 

[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.

And here is some actual research you can see...

Public Health and Gun Control --- A Review (Part II: Gun Violence and Constitutional Issues) | Hacienda Publishing


Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data.

The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.


(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)


Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)