tycho1572
Gold Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 13,050
- 3,103
- 290
You and I both know you’re full of shit. We’ve been hearing that nonsense from democrats for years.
Even with so many gun free zones, American gun owners are saving lives during violent mass shootings
- Thread starter 2aguy
- Start date
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #23
I support having guns in the home and place the onus on the home owner for it's use and storage. But, don't you think it's time to at least be honest about it? Do a simple google search of how many people have been shot in the homes mistaken for intruders and then do a search for how many intruders are shot by homeowners The first one is a very, very long list while the last one is made up of 23 total. There is a 4 to one chance that you will mistake a family member or an innocent for an intruder and kill them instead. Not something I care to have to live with. But there are a whole bunch that do have to live with it. But that's one of the prices to having a loaded gun in the home with easy access which is your right. You also have the right to go to prison for it's misuse.
Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
Simply put: for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Here is a good read.
Listening to Killers
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #24
And yo u know I am a Democrat how? Since the bulk of the people in the state I live in have elected to go with common sense gun regulations does that make them all Democrats? Or are we all Democrats just because you say so? Even the average Democrat leans a little to the right on this subject. But don't let that get in the way of your hate speech.
Last edited:
whitehall
Diamond Member
No NRA member in modern history has ever been accused much less convicted of a mass shooting. All mass shootings in modern history were perpetrated by left wing democrats and insane people (same thing?). The mainstream media buried the story of the Sanders democrat activist who opened fire on a republican baseball team last year, faster then they buried James Hodgkinson. The Vegas shooter is still shrouded in media fog but the only logical motive seems to be that Stephen Paddock opened fire on a right wing cowboy concert because he hated republicans.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #26
Oh, I see. If they are mentally unstable and do a mass shooting, just before they do the shooting, they are required by law to rush right down to the county court house and register as a democrat. Give that a rest. Mass shootings are not Partisan in any way shape or form and making that claim just means that you are playing the Orange Card way too hard.
As for Paddock, read,
Las Vegas shooting: gunman was on losing streak and 'germophobic', police say
There has been no mention about his party affiliation at all. But he just dropped a bundle in his business ventures and just came back from dropping a huge amount that that particular casino. Life, as he knew it, was destroyed and he took it out on the one thing that he blamed for his most recent loss. But there is no Nevada State Law that made him have to rush right down to the county court house to register as any type of party member. And he didn't. Stop making shit up.
tycho1572
Gold Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 13,050
- 3,103
- 290
Like cars, guns can take lives.
Can you honestly say you’ve never heard democrats attacking our 2nd amendment rights?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #28
Moron... you don't know what you are talking about....you are pulling this out of your ass.....
You didn't read Kleck's study, you keep mixing up Kleck's work with the CDC research and you just lied, again, about Kleck including the police and military......
You keep making crap up and then you sit there thinking you are clever...you are an idiot.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #30
That study is worthless......the CDC found Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop violent criminals.....
And again, they cite Kellerman...the guy who made up the numbers to begin with....
You Know Less Than You Think About Guns
Is Having a Gun in the Home Inherently Deadly?
The idea that keeping a gun in the home puts owners and their families at elevated risk first rose to prominence in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article by Arthur Kellermann and his colleagues. "Although firearms are often kept in homes for personal protection," they concluded, "this study shows that the practice is counterproductive."
The study has many flaws. In addition to the predictable failure to establish causality, there's a more glaring irregularity: Slightly less than half of the murders Kellermann studied were actually committed with a gun (substantially less than the national average in 1993 of around 71 percent). And even in those cases he failed to establish that the gun owners were killed with their own guns. If even a small percentage of them weren't, given that more than half of the murders were notcommitted with guns, the causal relevance of the harmed being gun owners is far less clear. (The study found that even more dangerous risks than having a gun at home included living alone, using drugs, or being a renter.)
A 2013 literature review in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, written by the University of Utrecht psychologist Wolfgang Stroebe, starts with Kellermann but rejects the idea that firearm possession is "a primary cause of either suicide or homicide." However, he writes, "since guns are more effective means for [actually killing someone] than poison or other weapons, the rate of firearm possession can be expected to be positively related to overall rates of suicide and homicide." But even then we can't be sure of causality, since guns might be the choice of people with more serious lethal intent, against themselves or others, to begin with.
Stroebe notes that the two major post-Kellermann studies most often used to demonstrate an association between gun ownership and risk of homicide
shared one of Kellermann's fatal flaws: They offer no information about whether the gun used to kill the gun owners was their own.
And despite Kellermann's finding that living alone was very risky, one of the follow-ups, a 2004 study by Linda Dahlberg and colleagues, found that it was only those with roommates who faced a higher risk of a specifically gun-related homicide.
-----
And more on Kellerman.....
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
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #32
Kellerman only addressed suicides. Nothing else. And having a gun or not, if a person is dead serious about committing suicide they are going to commit suicide regardless. The gun just makes it easier and final with no saving grace. As usual, Kellerman used fuzzy math. Here are the real figures for suicide.
Serious Flaws in Kellerman
The 440 case individuals are
High-Risk with gun 110
High-Risk without Gun 110
Low-Risk with gun 55
Low Risk without Gun 165
High-Risk with gun 5.0%
High-Risk without gun 5.0%
Low-Risk with gun 22.5%
Low-Risk without gun 67.5%.
This clearly shows that they are equal or the non gun suicides are actually higher. And, once again, no mention of CDC at all since that data cannot be accessed by anyone. Kellerman is a fraud. The only saving grace Kellerman has is that he's hated by the NRA since he just won't quite toe the company line. But he's not a mathematician, or a gun expert of any kind. He's a Physician.
You are still trying to post as much crap so we won't see that you are just making crap up again.
.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #33
Gotta love an armed lady.
For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.
Since there are 4 times the number of in home shootings of family members that were mistaken for intruders, I suggest the other side start posting 4 of those for each 1 of what you post.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #34
Just because you say so. Or your heroes tell you to think that way. Grow a pair and a brain, cupcake.
tycho1572
Gold Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 13,050
- 3,103
- 290
Are you trying to use suicide as an argument against guns?
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #36
Gotta love an armed lady.
For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.
And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,046
- 53,553
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #37
Moron.....Japan, China, Korea all have extrem gun control...only criminals and cops have guns....and their suicide rates are higher than ours...not only that, even countries in Europe that have extreme gun control have higher suicide rates than ours....so suicide isn't a gun issue, you doofus......
Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide
There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.
tycho1572
Gold Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 13,050
- 3,103
- 290
Gotta love an armed lady.
For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.
And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?
How many times will we be hearing horror stories because people didn’t have a way to protect themselves?
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #39
Not me, your gunnutter boyfriend brought that up like it means anything and he even screwed that up. We can't do a thing about suicides that are successful. If a person doesn't have a gun and decides he wants to commit suicide by gun, he can legally purchase a gun, take it home and kill himself and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Or he can find the nearest drug dealer and buy a weeks worth of smack and do the same thing. It's not an issue and I don't even try and bring it up. But your gunnutter boyfriend wants to make shit up about it to try and win an unwinnable argument.
Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #40
Gotta love an armed lady.
For those who haven’t seen this before, that woman was an off duty cop.
And how many times are you gunnutters going to post the same clip over and over trying to make us think that it's a higher occurrence?
How many times will we be hearing horror stories because people didn’t have a way to protect themselves?
Maybe the gun grabbers need to bring up all those innocents that were killed because they were mistaken for intruders. That happens 4 times the rate as the real intruder. This could get real ugly fast. I just don't have the time nor the stomach to do that myself.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
AI music created for AI listeners(yep, you read it right)
- Started by ozro
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Is it true that the Iranian Embasay in Denmark raises the old Persian Flag?- Started by BackAgain
- Replies: 3
-
