Georgia girl, 7, dies after being shot Christmas shopping with family: Atlanta must be a real nice place

[j-mac]

Why is it, or should it be up to anyone else what I choose to own legally?

 

[JoeB131]

You need to familiarize yourself with the 2nd Amendment. You can interpret it all you want and align with how you feel it should be but; objectively, I have more than the right to hire security.

Actually, I have.

It was about militias, not gun ownership.

 

[JoeB131]

Why is it, or should it be up to anyone else what I choose to own legally?

Good question.

there's a whole lot of things that you aren't allowed to own.

you aren't allowed to have a toxic waste dump in your back yard.

You aren't allowed to have a meth lab.

You aren't allowed to own howitzers, nerve gas or anthrax.

Why? Because these things are a danger to the community.

So is some of you people owning guns.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

 

[22lcidw]

Why is it, or should it be up to anyone else what I choose to own legally?

Good question.

there's a whole lot of things that you aren't allowed to own.

you aren't allowed to have a toxic waste dump in your back yard.

You aren't allowed to have a meth lab.

You aren't allowed to own howitzers, nerve gas or anthrax.

Why? Because these things are a danger to the community.

So is some of you people owning guns.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

I have to say to you. I have lived in red and purple areas the last 25 years. I do not see what you say about so called "gun nuts". In fact the local news for the most part shows crime by all groups but with a preponderance with the same types you see in some areas of cities.

 

[LeftofLeft]

You need to familiarize yourself with the 2nd Amendment. You can interpret it all you want and align with how you feel it should be but; objectively, I have more than the right to hire security.

Actually, I have.

It was about militias, not gun ownership.

What is the consensus definition of a militia?

 

[Quasar44]

Georgia girl, 7, dies after being shot Christmas shopping with family: report | Fox News

A 7-year-old Georgia girl died Saturday night from injuries sustained in a shooting earlier in the week while she was Christmas shopping with her family, a report said.


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Kennedy Maxie was shot in the back of the head while she was driving with her mom and aunt near Atlanta’s Phipps Plaza.

CHICAGO VIOLENCE: 7 KILLED, 27 SHOT DURING CHRISTMAS WEEKEND

The aunt, who was behind the wheel at the time, reportedly continued to drive after the gunfire until she "noticed that the victim was acting strangely." She realized the girl was hit and rushed her to a hospital, where she was rushed into surgery.

Fun in Shitcago included.

?

Atlanta is a “planet of the apes city “

 

[2aguy]

Guns also save and protect people.

No, they really don't. GUn in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Almost 800 people killed in Chicago with the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Then we have this attack in New York, with a stupid Democrat Mayor that has defunded the police.

Chicago hasn't had strict gun laws in over a decade. They overturned our gun laws in 2010, and the Gun Industry couldn't want to open a gun shop on every block.

Again with the 43 lie..........

Kellerman changed that number to 2.7 after he was called out on his shoddy work....and even then he was still using flawed data.....you keep using the lie.....

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;

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


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


https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

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.



The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

 

[2aguy]

That old lie about the gun being 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy has been debunked so many times I am amazed you still trot it out.

Well, when you trot out a debunking that doesn't come from the National Rampage Assocation, I'll take it seriously.

Actually, that number is probably low.

The pundits, politicos, and elites that pitch the bullshit stats you are posting here are first to make sure they are protected by firearms. Remind them of your stats. If firearm protections are good enough for them, they are good enough for me.

Okay. You totally have the right to hire a bonded, professional security person.

Your figure of 39k is bogus as hell. The only way you get that many gun deaths is if you include 29,000 or 30,000 suicides. And if you think you can stop suicides by remove one single method, you are more delusional than I thought.

I think you can reduce suicides by removing a popular method, um, yeah.

When the British changed over from lethal coal gas to natural gas, the suicide rate DID drop when people couldn't off themselves by sticking their heads in the oven.

I think you can reduce suicides by removing a popular method, um, yeah.

Tell that to the Japanese who have higher suicide rates than we do, and only their criminals and police have guns....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.
========

h

 

[2aguy]

And when Australia banned private ownership of almost all guns, the suicide rate did NOT drop. It actually rose by a tiny percentage.

Australia never had the widespread gun proliferation we had.

Moron..........you just defeated your own argument....you idiot.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Georgia girl, 7, dies after being shot Christmas shopping with family: report | Fox News

A 7-year-old Georgia girl died Saturday night from injuries sustained in a shooting earlier in the week while she was Christmas shopping with her family, a report said.


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Kennedy Maxie was shot in the back of the head while she was driving with her mom and aunt near Atlanta’s Phipps Plaza.

CHICAGO VIOLENCE: 7 KILLED, 27 SHOT DURING CHRISTMAS WEEKEND

The aunt, who was behind the wheel at the time, reportedly continued to drive after the gunfire until she "noticed that the victim was acting strangely." She realized the girl was hit and rushed her to a hospital, where she was rushed into surgery.

Fun in Shitcago included.

?

Atlanta is a “planet of the apes city “

Well carry your racist white ass to Rome, GA.

 

[K9Buck]

A 7 year old girl is a 7 year old girl to me

As a more-enlightened, inclusive, tolerant, loving-liberal, I just pretend that the child was a late-term abortion and then I no longer give a fuck.

 

[K9Buck]

Well carry your racist white ass to Rome, GA.

What's up in Rome, Ga?

 

[Quasar44]

Atlanta is the new “black Mecca”
As black as the “ dark side of the moon or deep space “
As black as Detroit , Philly and Baltimore

 

[Quasar44]

Boston is still an Irish city and NYC has the Jews

 

[Quasar44]

Georgia girl, 7, dies after being shot Christmas shopping with family: report | Fox News

A 7-year-old Georgia girl died Saturday night from injuries sustained in a shooting earlier in the week while she was Christmas shopping with her family, a report said.


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Kennedy Maxie was shot in the back of the head while she was driving with her mom and aunt near Atlanta’s Phipps Plaza.

CHICAGO VIOLENCE: 7 KILLED, 27 SHOT DURING CHRISTMAS WEEKEND

The aunt, who was behind the wheel at the time, reportedly continued to drive after the gunfire until she "noticed that the victim was acting strangely." She realized the girl was hit and rushed her to a hospital, where she was rushed into surgery.

Fun in Shitcago included.

?

Just another day in RATlanta

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again with the 43 lie..........

Kellerman changed that number to 2.7 after he was called out on his shoddy work....and even then he was still using flawed data.....you keep using the lie.....

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;

Am I mistaken, or did even that “2.7” claim still count guns brought into a home by a criminal, to attack the rightful occupants of that home, as a “gun in the home”?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Again, we aren't going to pass sensible gun laws, so we've all decided this is something we can live with.

What gun laws would've precluded this?

 

[j-mac]

Why is it, or should it be up to anyone else what I choose to own legally?

Good question.

there's a whole lot of things that you aren't allowed to own.

you aren't allowed to have a toxic waste dump in your back yard.

You aren't allowed to have a meth lab.

You aren't allowed to own howitzers, nerve gas or anthrax.

Why? Because these things are a danger to the community.

So is some of you people owning guns.

The best argument for gun control is a five minute conversation with a gun nut.

Who said I wanted any of those things? See, the gun grabbers mistake is that you constantly try to equate owning a legal gun is on par with doing something wrong...It’s your choice not to own a gun, but it’s my right to own one if I want. Why are liberals consistently against anyone exercising their rights unless it’s another liberal?

 

[JoeB131]

Again with the 43 lie..........

Kellerman changed that number to 2.7 after he was called out on his shoddy work....and even then he was still using flawed data.....you keep using the lie.....

Kellerman never said anything of the sort.

 

[JoeB131]

Tell that to the Japanese who have higher suicide rates than we do, and only their criminals and police have guns....you doofus..

The Japanese have a culture that see suicide as honorable and even expected if you have brought disgrace on your family. Not comparable at all.

Am I mistaken, or did even that “2.7” claim still count guns brought into a home by a criminal, to attack the rightful occupants of that home, as a “gun in the home”?

Naw, man, you are mistaken.

Kellerman found that for every bad guy shot by a gun owner, there were 39 suicides, 3.5 homicides and 0.5 accidental deaths from guns in the home. In short, the gun made things worse, not better.

Now, yeah, in some of those cases, the family member might have found some other way to commit suicide, the wife might have still brained her husband with a frying pan, or the accident prone idiot might have still found another way to remove himself from the Gene Pool. But by that same token, the homeowner could have dispatched the bad guy with a baseball bat or golf club.