Armed Citizen Holds Burglar At Gunpoint!

[JoeB131]

Here is a heart warming story....I don't think this woman was a navy seal.....

Armed Home Intruders Put Gun To Woman 8217 s Neck Quickly Learn They Made A Huge Mistake Concealed Nation


The homeowner was not injured and is not expected to face any charges.

and we're back to gun porn, no doubt Billy is typing with one hand while his other hand is "occuppied".

Okay, off to the store.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I mean the fact that the information that produced that particular claim has been debunked. I have posted links before that have shown that.

which were all bullshit, and I rejected.

Again, if Kellerman were false, then we should do another study of gun deaths and find out what the real number is.

Yes I know. You rejected it because you claimed it was "gun nutter" sourced. But then, anything that disagrees with your ideology is termed the same.

But you try and defend using the numbers provided by an anti-gun organization in Australia over the numbers published by the Dept of Justice and the FBI. More hypocrisy.

 

[2aguy]

Your proclamation of "Done" is meaningless. If you average the number of gun murders from 2007 to 2012, you get 9,201. Of course, I am using the numbers provided by the recognized authority on crime in the US. So when you average the actual numbers, you get the 9,201.

But you won't accept their numbers when they say only 65,000 DGU's...

Joe....the numbers hemenway created from the NCVS are not respected.....by serious researchers...by anti gun nuts...sure...his is the only study that puts the numbers that low...his masters at Handgun Control Inc. gave him a cookie after he fudged those numbers....

Here is a look a the studies and how they debunk kellerman and hemenway....

Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

There has probably been more outright dishonesty in addressing the issue of the frequency of DGU than any other issue in the gun control debate. Faced with a huge body of evidence contradicting their rare-DGU position, hard-core gun control supporters have had little choice but to simply promote the unsuitable NCVS estimate and to ignore, attack, or discount everything else.

Authors writing in medical and public health journals are typically the most crudely dishonest––they simply withhold from their readers the very existence of a huge volume of contradictory evidence. For example, Kellermann and his colleagues discussed the issue of DGU in a recent paper, but omitted any mention of any of the surveys indicating large numbers of DGUs. Instead they cited only the NCVS estimate (1995, p. 1761).

Even if Kellermann and his colleagues did not know of all 15 of the other surveys that had been conducted by the time their article was written, they clearly knew of the existence of at least six contradictory surveys, since these early surveys were reviewed in a source that Kellermann et al. cited and presumably had read (see their note 24, citing Kleck 1988). Thus it is fair to say that Kellermann and his colleagues knowingly withheld from their readers information from at least six surveys contradicting their low-DGU claims.

Anti gunners have to lie......they have nothing else....

 

[WinterBorn]

1) Crime rates went up with England and Australia banned most guns.
2) Not to brag ... but not so "tiny."

Uh, no, they didn't.
and yes, it probably is.

After Australia's gun ban:

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.


Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Australian Gun Ban Resulted In Higher Crime Rates

When you cite a group that is paranoid about the "New World Order" as a source, you are taking the train to crazy town.

Okay, here's something from Politifact,

Stephen King says since Australia cracked down on guns homicides by gun dropped 60 percent PolitiFact


We wanted to know: Have homicides by firearm in Australia dropped almost 60 percent? And did those "tough gun laws" do it?

‘It’s arithmetic, honey’

We asked King and Australian and American experts in gun violence for evidence.

By a few different measures, the arithmetic works. Homicides by firearm did decline after 1996 — in fact, had already been in decline.

One path to "almost 60 percent" comes from statistics compiled in part by Philip Alpers, a public health professor at the University of Sydney. The number of gun homicides fell from 69 in 1996 (excluding the 35 victims of the mass shooting prompting the laws) to 30 in 2012.

That’s a decrease of 56.5 percent.

A decrease in gun homicides. But the number of homicides in general did not decrease by nearly that much. And the rates of violent crimes per 100,000 population have risen steadily since the gun restrictions.

 

[2aguy]

Here is an anti gun researcher contradicting himself....

The analyisis of these anti gun research methods is quite lengthy and detailed......

Faced with overwhelming survey support for the idea that DGUs are common, some pro-control scholars belatedly adopted the view that surveys simply cannot yield any useful information about how often DGUs occur. A cynic might conclude that, faced with defeat on the field of empirical evidence, they suddenly developed a radical skepticism toward all survey estimates.

For example, prior to 1995, Philip Cook uncritically cited the very low NCVS survey estimates of DGUs (Cook 1991, p. 56; Cook and Moore 1994, p. 272) as solid evidence that DGUs were in fact rare. As late as 1994 he stated, basedsolely on survey research, that “self-defense with a gun is a rare event in crimes like burglary and robbery” (Cook and Moore 1994, p. 275).

Then, preliminary frequencies on the DGU questions in the 1994 Police Foundation survey (Cook and Ludwig 1997) became available in early 1995 and the results of the Kleck-Gertz survey were published in December of 1995. Thus, in 1995 it became evident that good quality national surveys, including the 1994 Police Foundation survey that Cook helped design and analyze (eventually published as Cook and Ludwig 1997), were likely to continue indicating the DGUs occurred quite often.

 

[martybegan]

No, I mean the fact that the information that produced that particular claim has been debunked. I have posted links before that have shown that.

which were all bullshit, and I rejected.

Again, if Kellerman were false, then we should do another study of gun deaths and find out what the real number is.

No one is stopping anyone from doing it. everyone has access to the data. pony up some $$ Joe and get it done.

 

[WinterBorn]

Dude.....go to the Australian forum on this site......it is there, I just copied the name of the thread....I'm not hiding it just pointing out the Aussies on this site have pointed out their problem with rape......due to their women being disarmed, that was my point not theirs....

Murder rate in Australia went down by 60% after they banned guns.

Case closed.

The GUN murder rate went down by 60%. The actual murder rate did not drop by nearly that much.

And, since you are using Australia as a benchmark, what happened to their suicide rates when they places heavy restrictions on firearms? Did they go down? No, they actually rose for a bit and then leveled off about where they were.

Oh, and Australia never banned guns. Heavy restrictions, yes. Ban, no.

 

[2aguy]

Why hemenway is a an anti gun nut....my opinion...


Although we systematically rebut each of Hemenwayls H claims we

4. The Hemenway Critique of the National Self-Defense Survey

Hemenway’s paper was not an attempt to produce a balanced, intellectually serious assessment of estimates of defensive gun use. Instead, his critique served the narrow political purpose of “getting the estimate down,” for the sake of assisting the gun control cause. An honest, scientifically based critique would have given balanced consideration to both flaws that would tend to make the estimate too low (e.g., people concealing DGUs because they involved unlawful behavior, and the failure to count any DGUs by adolescents), and to those that contribute to making them too high.

Equally important, it would have given greatest weight to relevant empirical evidence, and little or no weight to idle speculation about possible flaws. Hemenway’s approach was precisely the opposite––one-sided and almost entirely speculative. Readers who have any doubts about the degree to which Hemenway’s paper was imbalanced could carry out a simple exercise to assess this claim: count the number of lines Hemenway devoted to flaws tending to make the estimate too high and the number devoted to flaws making the estimate too low.

Hemenway also misled readers by quoting Kleck and Gertz out of context in a way that suggested that they somehow felt that the NCVS was a good survey for estimating DGU frequency (p. 1441), when their position was actually the reverse. On pp. 156-7 of their article, Kleck and Gertz had written that (1) years of careful refinement and evaluation had made the NCVS an excellent vehicle for getting respondents to report illegal things that other people had done to them, but that (2) it was singularly ill-suited to getting people to admit possibly illegal things (such as DGU) that they themselves had done. Hemenway quoted only the first part of this statement (see text attached to his note 46), a bit of creative editing that served to invert the sense of the passage.

In some instances, Hemenway’s speculations about alleged problems were unconscionable since he knew that Kleck and Gertz had already directly addressed them and had presented evidence contradicting the speculation, and Hemenway had offered no rebuttal of the evidence, or argumentation as to why it was invalid or irrelevant. For example, he speculated (p. 1438) that respondents might have reported incidents “in which they were afraid, they retrieved a gun, and nothing bad happened.” Kleck and Gertz had explicitly addressed this issue in the article (1995, pp. 162-163) and stated that they had insured the respondents claiming a DGU had (1) actually confronted an adversary, (2) had actually done something with their gun (e.g. pointed it at an adversary), and (3) could state a specific crime (i.e. “something bad”) that they thought was being committed against them. In short, Hemenway falsely hinted that Kleck and Gertz did nothing to rule out this sort of report as a DGU.

Hemenway claimed the Kleck and Gertz did little to reduce what Hemenway imagined to be a huge overestimation bias. Since there was no reason to believe such a thing existed when the NSDS was designed, and even less reason to believe it now, this is comparable to saying that Kleck and Gertz did nothing to prevent demons from possessing their interviewers. With a convenient vagueness, Hemenway did not say precisely what he thought Kleck and Gertz should have done to reduce this supposed bias, and therefore does not specify anything they failed to do.

In any case, the claim is false. On p. 161 of their article Kleck and Gertz explained that “all interviews in which an alleged DGU was reported by the respondent were validated by supervisors with call-backs” and, on p. 163, that Kleck “went through interview sheets on every one of the interviews in which a DGU was reported, looking for any indication that the incident might not be genuine.” They also reported on p. 172 that they debriefed their interviewers after the calling was finished, asking them about possible false reports and found that “only one interviewer spoke with a person he thought was inventing a nonexistent event.” It would be more accurate to say that they did virtually everything that could ethically be done to guard against false reports.

 

[2aguy]

LOL. I've owned a gun since I was twelve. There have always been guns in my home since my birth to the present time. I've hurt myself by stubbing my toe on a furniture leg or a pair of nail clippers several times but my guns have NEVER created a "hazard."

Wait ... I hear something. It sounds like wind whistling through your ears!!

Statistically, a gun in your home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Joe...you know that study is a lie.....

 

[martybegan]

LOL. I've owned a gun since I was twelve. There have always been guns in my home since my birth to the present time. I've hurt myself by stubbing my toe on a furniture leg or a pair of nail clippers several times but my guns have NEVER created a "hazard."

Wait ... I hear something. It sounds like wind whistling through your ears!!

Statistically, a gun in your home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Joe...you know that study is a lie.....

I don't think he actually does. He thinks you can take a flawed study done in one County in Oregon and spread it throughout the country.

 

[2aguy]

1) Crime rates went up with England and Australia banned most guns.
2) Not to brag ... but not so "tiny."

Uh, no, they didn't.
and yes, it probably is.

After Australia's gun ban:

Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.


Home invasions increased by 21%.

Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.

Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Australian Gun Ban Resulted In Higher Crime Rates

When you cite a group that is paranoid about the "New World Order" as a source, you are taking the train to crazy town.

Okay, here's something from Politifact,

Stephen King says since Australia cracked down on guns homicides by gun dropped 60 percent PolitiFact


We wanted to know: Have homicides by firearm in Australia dropped almost 60 percent? And did those "tough gun laws" do it?

‘It’s arithmetic, honey’

We asked King and Australian and American experts in gun violence for evidence.

By a few different measures, the arithmetic works. Homicides by firearm did decline after 1996 — in fact, had already been in decline.

One path to "almost 60 percent" comes from statistics compiled in part by Philip Alpers, a public health professor at the University of Sydney. The number of gun homicides fell from 69 in 1996 (excluding the 35 victims of the mass shooting prompting the laws) to 30 in 2012.

That’s a decrease of 56.5 percent.

Joe...I posted politifact and they ran the crime numbers themselves....Britain has twice the violent crime rate than we do.....

 

[Iceweasel]

The bottom line is, since you haven't figured it out yet, no one really gives a **** what you think.

Yes, you gun nuts have spent 22 pages not caring what I think, squealling hysterically that I suggest that we'd be better off without guns.

I pointed out that you're an insane asshole and have made fun of you. You think that's caring? LOL.

 

[WinterBorn]

JoeyB, what you fail to do is negate the fundamental facts in this topic.

If guns are the problem, as you insist they are, then an increase in the number of people with gun would have a corresponding increase in the number of gun crimes.

But gun ownership has steadily gone up in the US. And the rates of violent crime have steadily gone down. That alone blows your entire claim that guns are the problem.

 

[Papageorgio]

As in so many of his erroneous posts, he is reaching to some how justify his opinion against the fact. The real issue with nuts like him, they believe their own lies and justifications.

11500 is the established figure i've been using for years, and you guys only thought now to try to find other slightly different numbers if you cherry pick them right.

But, guy, 9200 murders with guns is still really bad when Japan only has 11 and Germany only has 258.

So you have been using erroneous numbers for years now.

Thank you for admitting that you are lying.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes I know. You rejected it because you claimed it was "gun nutter" sourced. But then, anything that disagrees with your ideology is termed the same.

But you try and defend using the numbers provided by an anti-gun organization in Australia over the numbers published by the Dept of Justice and the FBI. More hypocrisy.

Even if accept the numbers you put out... they are still unacceptable.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeyB, what you fail to do is negate the fundamental facts in this topic.

If guns are the problem, as you insist they are, then an increase in the number of people with gun would have a corresponding increase in the number of gun crimes.

But gun ownership has steadily gone up in the US. And the rates of violent crime have steadily gone down. That alone blows your entire claim that guns are the problem.

gun ownership has DECLINED. It hasn't gone up. The problem is that gun industy knows this, so their goal is to sell more guns to nuttier people like your pinup girl, Nancy Lanza.

The zombies are a coming, Nancy!

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think he actually does. He thinks you can take a flawed study done in one County in Oregon and spread it throughout the country.

First, the study was done in Washington, not Oregon.

Secondly, he repeated the study in several other cities and got the same results.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe...I posted politifact and they ran the crime numbers themselves....Britain has twice the violent crime rate than we do.....

Well, no, they don't.

THey just count things as "violent crime" that we wouldn't. which is awesome, because if you aren't chasing down murderers, you can spend time on the soccer hooligans.

 

[martybegan]

I don't think he actually does. He thinks you can take a flawed study done in one County in Oregon and spread it throughout the country.

First, the study was done in Washington, not Oregon.

Secondly, he repeated the study in several other cities and got the same results.

oooh one State off.

and a bullshitter got the same bullshit when he went looking for more bullshit.

Color me surprised.

 

[JoeB131]

oooh one State off.

and a bullshitter got the same bullshit when he went looking for more bullshit.

Color me surprised.

Well, it tells me you don't know much about the subject.

It's one of those right wing things. If science doesn't say what you want- gun control, evolution, global warming - the the scientists must be part of the conspiracy.