Gun owners face much higher murder risk....NRA kills study

[Skull Pilot]

So were the guns lawfully owned? Did the gun owners have criminal records?


Or are these people just piece of shit scumbags?

As usual your so called polls are lacking much relevant info.

Ask the NRA

They killed the study

The study was done wasn't it?

The results have to be out there somewhere

 

[Skull Pilot]

What is the NRA afraid of?

“More importantly, however, was that they put a clause for the appropriations of the CDC that essentially blocked all gun research for the next two decades," Rivara says.
The CDC budget cuts all but ended federal gun research. Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who also worked on the 1993 study, stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that “no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out” if any gun research could be done. "Support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

Why does a federal agency have to do the research?

Why can't you do it all the information is out there.

 

[strollingbones]

women rarely use guns...too damaging to the body...we do want to leave a good looking corpse....so that seems to be a man thing...the guns for suicide ....

i just do not understand why anti gun people get so rabid over MY having guns in my home....i just dont see that its your business what i have in my home..isnt it still my castle..and if you rush my moat dont i have a right to self defense...that is what i do not get....the anti gun people want to take my rights to self defense....i do not live in an area where police are all around....it can take a hot 15 minutes or so if they are all on the other side of the county.....so you can be left with quite a time gap there....what do you suggest when one is attacked in one's home...what do you think one should do?

I'm not even sure who you're arguing with. I think your "anti gun" crowd represents a straw man argument. I am quite liberal, but I don't care if you have a gun in your home or not--it's YOUR risk, not mine. I think you're getting all worked up because you listen to Retard Radio.

i was replying to the op...perhaps you read it.....and i am a liberal....and yes its is my risk and none of your business....and what is retard radio? enlighten me....since you have the answers

and yet no one addresses why i dont have a right to self defense?

 

[Skull Pilot]

women rarely use guns...too damaging to the body...we do want to leave a good looking corpse....so that seems to be a man thing...the guns for suicide ....

i just do not understand why anti gun people get so rabid over MY having guns in my home....i just dont see that its your business what i have in my home..isnt it still my castle..and if you rush my moat dont i have a right to self defense...that is what i do not get....the anti gun people want to take my rights to self defense....i do not live in an area where police are all around....it can take a hot 15 minutes or so if they are all on the other side of the county.....so you can be left with quite a time gap there....what do you suggest when one is attacked in one's home...what do you think one should do?

I'm not even sure who you're arguing with. I think your "anti gun" crowd represents a straw man argument. I am quite liberal, but I don't care if you have a gun in your home or not--it's YOUR risk, not mine. I think you're getting all worked up because you listen to Retard Radio.

i was replying to the op...perhaps you read it.....and i am a liberal....and yes its is my risk and none of your business....and what is retard radio? enlighten me....since you have the answers

and yet no one addresses why i dont have a right to self defense?

Progressives are total control freaks hell bent on telling everyone else how to live

 

[Nosmo King]

So were the guns lawfully owned? Did the gun owners have criminal records?


Or are these people just piece of shit scumbags?

As usual your so called polls are lacking much relevant info.

Ask the NRA

They killed the study

The study was done wasn't it?

The results have to be out there somewhere

The NRA squelched any money to have the study published and distributed.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So were the guns lawfully owned? Did the gun owners have criminal records?


Or are these people just piece of shit scumbags?

As usual your so called polls are lacking much relevant info.

Ask the NRA

They killed the study

The study was done wasn't it?

The results have to be out there somewhere

The NRA squelched any money to have the study published and distributed.

So why does a government agency have to do the study? surely one of those progressive control freak organizations can foot the bill for it.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[martybegan]

They also steal candy from babies, prevent Santa Claus from delivering his toys, and have been known to mess around with your office stuff, much like Robert Goulet.

No. They actually pressured legislators to deduct from the CDC budget the EXACT COST of conducting the study.

So guns are a disease?

Public health is at stake whenever a gun is introduced.

So the government has prevented outside groups who want to do this study access to the data the CDC would have used?

the CDC should concentrate on communicable diseases, its actual purpose, and leave the social engineering to others.

Calling the dangers posed by having a gun in the house "social engineering" is naïve at its face, irresponsible at its conclusion.

and using an government agency that was started to fight communicable diseases to do your gun grabbing dirty work is bad, but saying that the NRA stopped any work on this from happening is a flat out lie.

The data is still there, if some group wants to fudge numbers to make their "gunz badz, I has a sadz" point, then they should use their own money for it.

 

[martybegan]

source? If its based on a survey, you do realize it relies on the honesty of convicted felons, right?

 

[strollingbones]

the nra...bunch of guns nuts who like to stir the pot and get every one worked up....ussc still reaffirms my rights to self defense....

anti gunners.....just gotta stop the hysteria.....just stop....for every poor person killed by gun....if an gunner did active research we could find just as many....people saved by using their guns story...each is just an extreme while most people are way more moderate than either side gives them credit for

 

[Nosmo King]

So were the guns lawfully owned? Did the gun owners have criminal records?


Or are these people just piece of shit scumbags?

As usual your so called polls are lacking much relevant info.

Ask the NRA

They killed the study

The study was done wasn't it?

The results have to be out there somewhere

The NRA squelched any money to have the study published and distributed.

So why does a government agency have to do the study? surely one of those progressive control freak organizations can foot the bill for it.

So that the dismissal on political grounds can be waved. Would you have any trust in a study conducted by a think tank with political motivation? Would a study by the NRA produce only the conclusions they desire?

 

[Nosmo King]

No. They actually pressured legislators to deduct from the CDC budget the EXACT COST of conducting the study.

So guns are a disease?

Public health is at stake whenever a gun is introduced.

So the government has prevented outside groups who want to do this study access to the data the CDC would have used?

the CDC should concentrate on communicable diseases, its actual purpose, and leave the social engineering to others.

Calling the dangers posed by having a gun in the house "social engineering" is naïve at its face, irresponsible at its conclusion.

and using an government agency that was started to fight communicable diseases to do your gun grabbing dirty work is bad, but saying that the NRA stopped any work on this from happening is a flat out lie.

The data is still there, if some group wants to fudge numbers to make their "gunz badz, I has a sadz" point, then they should use their own money for it.

The clever NRA squelched the money to publish and distribute the study.

 

[martybegan]

So guns are a disease?

Public health is at stake whenever a gun is introduced.

So the government has prevented outside groups who want to do this study access to the data the CDC would have used?

the CDC should concentrate on communicable diseases, its actual purpose, and leave the social engineering to others.

Calling the dangers posed by having a gun in the house "social engineering" is naïve at its face, irresponsible at its conclusion.

and using an government agency that was started to fight communicable diseases to do your gun grabbing dirty work is bad, but saying that the NRA stopped any work on this from happening is a flat out lie.

The data is still there, if some group wants to fudge numbers to make their "gunz badz, I has a sadz" point, then they should use their own money for it.

The clever NRA squelched the money to publish and distribute the study.

again, is the data still available via an FOI request?

 

[2aguy]

What is the NRA afraid of?

“More importantly, however, was that they put a clause for the appropriations of the CDC that essentially blocked all gun research for the next two decades," Rivara says.
The CDC budget cuts all but ended federal gun research. Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who also worked on the 1993 study, stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that “no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out” if any gun research could be done. "Support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”

Anti gun propaganda disguised as legitimate research.........Kellerman lied in his study so right there.........doesn't help when the researcher makes up numbers because he wants guns banned.....

 

[Nosmo King]

Public health is at stake whenever a gun is introduced.

So the government has prevented outside groups who want to do this study access to the data the CDC would have used?

the CDC should concentrate on communicable diseases, its actual purpose, and leave the social engineering to others.

Calling the dangers posed by having a gun in the house "social engineering" is naïve at its face, irresponsible at its conclusion.

and using an government agency that was started to fight communicable diseases to do your gun grabbing dirty work is bad, but saying that the NRA stopped any work on this from happening is a flat out lie.

The data is still there, if some group wants to fudge numbers to make their "gunz badz, I has a sadz" point, then they should use their own money for it.

The clever NRA squelched the money to publish and distribute the study.

again, is the data still available via an FOI request?

I'm not sure.

 

[2aguy]

And again.....gun grabbers just lie....

CPRC at Fox News Don t believe mainstream media mistruths about firearms research - Crime Prevention Research Center

Nice story line, but a new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows none of this is true. The amendment didn’t ban federal research. Indeed, to the contrary, federal funded research, which was never an important part of the total, actually increased since then.


Besides, the NRA is not the only interest group involved in this battle. Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor who wants to protect you from buying oversized drinks or eating too much salt, is using his $31 billion fortune to fund anti-gun research through organizations such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Moms Demand Action, and the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, his Alma Mater. His crusade to protect Americans from guns is only now kicking into high gear.


Of course, academics are always enthusiastic about receiving more government funding for research. Take Professor Mark Rosenberg at Emory University, former head of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. He described how the cut in federal grants cultivated an atmosphere of fear and “scared people” or “terrorized people.” And Jens Ludwig at the University of Chicago argued that without federal money, “it is very difficult” to conduct research. A number of academics, many from top universities, signed an open letter demanding more federal funding for their research.

 

[2aguy]

MMS Error

Results
During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. 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; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Full Text of Results...
Conclusions
The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Really....kellerman...again.......here we go....some articles showing how wrong he was......he is just rabidly anti gun.....

This one directly talks about who owned the gun...

Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Whose gun?

In a letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine, "The students of Dr. Mark Ferris's Mathematical Statistics 460" class ask, "In how many of the homicides was the victim killed with a gun that was kept in the house rather than a gun that was brought to the house by the perpetrator?" The question is a relevant one since, as the letter also notes, the study's authors had stated in part based on their findings that "people should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes [p. 1090]." In other words, advising people against keeping a gun in the home doesn't make sense unless it causes an increase in homicide risk.


Kellermann's first response to the students was incorrect: "Ninety-three percent of the homicides involving firearms occurred in homes where a gun was kept, according to the proxy respondents." In a follow-up letter (four years later) Kellermann acknowledges his error, but still fails to directly answer the question.

Kellermann's own data suggests that for all gun homicides of matched cases no more than 34% were murdered by a gun from the victim's home. (GunCite's analysis of Kellermann's data.) (The data, such as it is, is available at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi/archive.prl?study=6898). 34% is probably on the charitable side since it assumes all family member or intimate homicides were commited by offenders living with the victim which is highly unlikely given that not all intimates (as defined in the Kellermann dataset: spouse, parents, in-laws, siblings, other relatives, and lovers) were likely to have lived with an adult victim.


A subsequent study, again by Kellermann, of fatal and non-fatal gunshot woundings, showed that only 14.2% of the shootings involving a gun whose origins were known, involved a gun kept in the home where the shooting occurred. (Kellermann, et. al. 1998. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." Journal of Trauma 45:263-267) ("The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police [p. 252].") (Kleck, Gary. "Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of Being Murdered?" Homicide Studies 5 [2001].)

This is more technical....

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

this is the introduction to an abstract by Kleck and Gertz refuting kellerman...

Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner s Chances of being Murdered

sing a case-control design comparing homicide victims with matched nonvictims, Kellermann et al. (1993) concluded that keeping a gun in one's home increased the risk of being murdered by a factor of 2.7. The authors' underlying assumption was that a significant elevation in homicide risk derived from the risk of being murdered with a gun kept in the victim's home. This article shows that homicides are rarely committed with guns belonging to members of the victim's home and that such killings could be responsible for no more than a 2.4% increase in the relative risk of being murdered. Guns in one's own home have little to do with homicide risk. Scholars need to attend more closely to the mechanisms by which an alleged causal effect is supposed to operate and to consider their plausibility before concluding that an association reflects a causal effect.

 

[Zander]

Here is a simple solution to this non-issue.

If you're an hysterical sissy like Falsewinger and Puddly, don't own a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Gun owners face a much higher chance of protecting themselves since cowering, begging and peeing doesn't gain you any tactical advantage. But hey, we can't all be libs.

I am not so sure

Someone with a gun is much more likely to confront an intruder and end up in a gunfight where they are just as likely to end up the loser

But in truth, you are more likely to kill your spouse with that gun than to shoot an intruder

That is a lie......and not backed up by research...well....research that isn't anti gun......

 

[2aguy]

You guys do realize that gun murder rates are going down not up....right....and gun accident rates are going down, not up......with more Americans than ever owning and actually caring guns.....11.1 million people now carry guns for self defense and again, the gun murder rate is going down............according to real research that is....