But....armed Americans won't be able to use their guns effectively to stop attackers, you know, except for this guy, and so many others...

[Mikeoxenormous]

Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.

Not with this card...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.


The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".


Sure, you COULD, possibly, in some rare scenario become a hero. But odds are better that you won't.

Only for moronic Marxists who dont know how to keep their weapons safe and secure.

LA mayoral candidate Rep. Karen Bass has guns stolen …​

Two guns were stolen from the California home of Congresswoman and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Karen Bass, the rep said on Saturday. Rep. Bass, 68, released a statement that said she came home ...

https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/la-mayoral-candidate...

https://www.bing.com/search?q=anti+...NNTH1&refig=f5c44c998b3d4982a44ba410e210a322#

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

What you dont get is that most of us dont want to be heroes. We just don't want to be caught like a sitting duck by one of these people. I carry everyday but there is no way I want to be put in the position to be a "hero"

 

[Paracetamol63]

Only for moronic Marxists who dont know how to keep their weapons safe and secure.

The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect. The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect. The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.

Gun enthusiasts are all right to me, because i dont see them out there murdering people, like i do the Marxist teenagers who are taught that America is evil, so those Marxist go out and kill innocent people, who just want to live their lives in peace. Now with the lawlessness of the Joe Biden America DOJ, more of those Marxists are showing up not only in the inner cities but have moved on into the burbs.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect. The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.

^^^
Mindless nonsense.

 

[westwall]

And nothing says "Good intentioned, law-abiding gun owner" than sneakin' around hiding your gun purchases because someone might see you.

Who else does that? Oh I know...they usually find their way onto the news!

Nothing says fascist more than a government monitoring everything you buy.

Now, go lick another boot.

 

[Paracetamol63]

^^^
Mindless nonsense.

Yup. Just like my pappy told me. There are idiots who come out into our timber with guns. They come down from the "city" and they are too stupid to know what they are doing. Best to avoid them at all costs lest you get yourself shot.

You seem to have that vibe.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Nothing says fascist more than a government monitoring everything you buy.

Or that denies you access to healthcare based on your personal bodily choices. But that is what you voted to do.

Now, go lick another boot.

I'd say you already licked the Right one raw.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yup. Just like my pappy told me. There are idiots who come out into our timber with guns. They come down from the "city" and they are too stupid to know what they are doing. Best to avoid them at all costs lest you get yourself shot.
You seem to have that vibe.

You say, without any demonstrably rational reason whatsoever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Or that denies you access to healthcare based on your personal bodily choices.

Examples?

 

[2aguy]

It's great that you are spending so much time finding all the occasional cases where a gun-obsessed person like yourself was able to actually use the gun to a good end.

Keep up the good work.


Unfortunately mathematics is a bit more difficult. In order to shift the average of a very large population (gun nuts) such that owning a gun winds up being LESS statistically likely to harm the family of the gun nut.

I know you don't like numbers or statistics unless they confirm you bias and you've of course seen all the studies now that show that guns in the home are far more likely to be used against the people in that home than not.

I really wish you understood math and statistics and it would be GREAT if you understood the phrases "Anecdotal Data" and "CONFIRMATION BIAS"

No....I don't like agenda driven research.......like all of the anti-gun research coming from you guys...

You guys take a community filled with criminals, drug users, alcoholics and domestic abusers, then say those are normal gun owners...while ignoring the owners of the millions of guns in stable, normal homes........

You are vile.....and, by the way....are you Brain357? Did you change your name? You post just like that idiot did...

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, but think about it: you probably AREN'T ever going to be a "hero" of any sort. Studies show that guns in the household are far more likely to be used to harm the inhabitants of that household than they are to protect against vicious intruders.

Don't get me wrong. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND wanting a gun for "self-defense", especially if you live in a really horrible place. I feel for you. I wish where you lived wasn't a hell-hole of non-stop violence. But also most of us don't live in those places.

I think the key is to balance out our relative "fantasies" of how effective we would be in a shoot-out with the likelihood that our loved ones may be more likely to die from the guns we have in our homes than they are from the intruder.

Yeah...this is the kind of research you idiots do...

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;

------------

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

 

[2aguy]

Let's be quite clear: YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher. It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.

What are your bona fides to take on actual research? I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled. So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.

You don't have to be a researcher to see the criticisms even in the article.......

Let's be quite clear: YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher. It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.

What are your bona fides to take on actual research? I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled. So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.

Your first crap article....

First Red Flag....Hemenway having any connection to the research...he is a rabid, dishonest anti-gun researcher.....

Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in an editorial on the survey that the evidence is “overwhelming” on the increased risk of successful suicide if there’s a gun in the home. Hemenway also points to the increased risk of violence against women in particular.

Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk

A study of individual instances of suicide and gun ownership shows a certain connection between the two

www.cbsnews.com

To take apart this bullshit....simply ask, how is it that Japan, China, and South Korea have far higher suicide rates than the U.S. even with their extreme gun control?

You can't get past that when it comes to the bullshit about guns and suicide...

 

[Paracetamol63]

You don't have to be a researcher to see the criticisms even in the article.......

Actually yes you do. Otherwise you don't necessarily understand the technical detailed points.

You can't get past that when it comes to the bullshit about guns and suicide...

I will go with the actual experts as opposed to you. Unfortuantely you are far too emotional for this topic. You are too quick to denigrate studies you are unprepared to critique. Your passion shows through too much. You are overly emotional about this topic.

 

[2aguy]

Let's be quite clear: YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher. It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.

What are your bona fides to take on actual research? I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled. So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.

The next piece of crap study you cited....

The authors of the study acknowledged it had several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims had been killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldn’t account for illegal guns

I found the actual study....funny, they didn't give a link to it in the article...I wonder why?


This is why it too, is crap......

Fifty-three percent of the homicides occurred away from the victim's home, 37.8% occurred at the victim's home, 1.3% involved victims residing in irregular dwellings (for example, homeless or institutionalized), and the location could not be determined for the remaining 7.5% (Figure 2).

---
Among homicides that occurred at home, the relationship of perpetrator to victim was unknown for 26.6%; among the rest, the victim was killed by a spouse or intimate partner in 36.9%, another family member in 25.9%, a friend or acquaintance in 20.9%, and a stranger in 16.2%.

ACP Journals

So....

What they don't talk about in this crap study?

How many of those people were criminals? How many of the women were shacked up with known criminals?

How many were killed in their homes by criminals attacking them in their homes?

How many of these homes had drug users or drug addicts in the homes....?

How many of the homes had domestic abusers in them?

This is how you guys lie, and why we know your research is crap....

 

[2aguy]

Actually yes you do. Otherwise you don't necessarily understand the technical detailed points.



I will go with the actual experts as opposed to you. Unfortuantely you are far too emotional for this topic. You are too quick to denigrate studies you are unprepared to critique. Your passion shows through too much. You are overly emotional about this topic.

You are more than willing to accept biased, crap research if it pushes your agenda.......

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You know damn well the attack on the 2nd has nothing to do with public safety.

Or should I say at this point, if the '2A Guy" doesn't know it, then the 2A side really is totally lost.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Gun owners will adamantly deny it but.........

The Marxist Left is slowly but surely winning the push to diarm Americans. Step by Step.

 

[Paracetamol63]

You are more than willing to accept biased, crap research if it pushes your agenda.......

No. But unlike you I actually know how analyses and data processing works so I tend to understand what I'm reading a bit better.