WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Yes, he did. And also, the problem with your statement is that it assumes the DGU will involve the death of the bad guy. Once again, that is nonsense.
Anti gunners...is this what you wanted when you banned gun magazines? Innocent people going to jail
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Yes, he did. And also, the problem with your statement is that it assumes the DGU will involve the death of the bad guy. Once again, that is nonsense.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
NO, actually, it isn't.
You listen to the gun nuts, who think Zimmerman is the greatest guy ever for actually shooting him one of them Negroes, (True, it was just a kid, but never mind), and you really think that if they were getting a chance to do that themselves, they'd only managed to pull it off 200 times out of thousands or millions of opportunities? That there are more DGU's than crimes by a factor of ten?
It's horseshit.
The reality is, the crook has a plan. the gunowner doesn't.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #143
I just posted the follow up study where he changed the number.........I linked to it and quoted the number changed to 2.7....and even then it wasn't accurate because of his methods.......but keep lying...
MMS: Error
After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;
------------
Nine Myths Of Gun Control
Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"
To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.
The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.
Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]
Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.
Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]
Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.
Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .
From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes
Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.
-
JoeB131
Diamond Member
No, he didn't. And no, if you didn't need to kill him, he wasn't a threat. He probably wasn't a threat if you actually killed him.. just ask Trayvon Martin.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
really? So, man, it was pretty dumb for Zimmerman to stalk this kid a block, then get out of his car and chase him after the 911 operator told him NOT to do it.
But again, you prove my point. You guys all think Zimmerman is a hero...
But yet you'd have us believe that you all have your compensation pointed at the evil negroes thousands or millions of times and don't shoot? Really?
Doesn't pass a laugh test.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Oh please, you want to make national gun bans based on the ravings of a handful of forum members?? LMAO!!!!! That is hilarious!!!
And yes, I believe that legal gun owners will refrain from killing someone most of the time. I also know that criminals will usually run when confronted with a gun.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Yes, as a matter of fact he did. The proof is already posted.
If the presence of a gun causes the criminal to flee, there was no need to shoot him. If you do shoot him and wound him, the threat is neutralized without a death.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
If someone is desperate enough to commit a crime, they will be desperate enough to see if you have the balls to shoot them...
So, no, DGU's don't happen that often.
except you guys never provide numbers to back up "Wounded but not killed".
In fact, the very fact your estimates on non-fatal DGU's range from 47,000 to 5 million tells me that it's more fantasy than fact.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Desperate enough to commit a crime? YOu think all criminals are desperate? You are delusional. Plus, criminals are more often scavengers than predators. When faced with the possibility of serious injury or death, they will flee.
There have been a number of DGUs that resulted in woundings posted in this thread. The fact that you claim it never happens is laughable.
As for the numbers, the majority are likely criminals running away when faced with a gun. I know of several of those that have happened to friends of mine.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Debunked BULLSHIT
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Most piece of shit criminals are cowards and will run when you pull a gun
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Here is a study by none other than the CDC that shoots down your theory, JoeyB.
from: CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
"“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” statesThe report, which notes that “ violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past five years,” also pointed out that “some firearm violence results in death, but most does not.” In fact, the CDC report said, most incidents involving the discharge of firearms do not result in a fatality.".
"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”"
JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,895
- 2,220
That wont stop the ideologues from using it any way.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Buffett’s Q4 Playbook: Trimming Tech, Doubling Down on Energy?- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
-
Democrats Rattled After California Sheriff Seizes 650,000 Ballots in Election Integrity Crackdown
- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 4
-
The real cause and reason for attack of Sept. 11, 2001- Started by Stryder50
- Replies: 2
