What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.

How can your stats be accurate when deterrent use is never or seldom reported.

If you want to count deterent use, you should also count all the times a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun. Neither of these are quantifiable.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.

How can your stats be accurate when deterrent use is never or seldom reported.

If you want to count deterent use, you should also count all the times a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun. Neither of these are quantifiable.

Those get reported and the offender jailed.

Any domestic abuse call in my state has someone going to jail.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
I dunno about the i cant beat the govt thing, since affirmative action has put allot of short chicks on the force around here..

So much so they have had to double and triple the amount of officers they send whenever i cause a stir now.

Used to be one big cop showed up and told me to shut up that was enough.

Those days are gone now the ACLU wont even allow the big cops to be cops anymore.

i could probably take this country over armed only with a wirst rocket to be honest.

if it wasnt for the armed citiZen of course. Only thing saving your asses now i got lots of marbles ya know.

:cow:

I'm kind of concerned that the cops coming to your house is a regular thing.

I only had the cops to my house twice, because I called them, and I lived in a really shitty neighborhood called Cicero IL.

Frankly, I've never seen these weak female cops you talk about...
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,712
Reaction score
59,858
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Here's my underlying take.

Haven't handled a firearm since I parted with the military in 1992, and frankly, I'm totally good with that. Don't need one, and don't feel I'm missing anything.

But I think that anyone who wants to own a gun, and isn't a criminal or has a mental illness, and can show he can handle the thing responsibly should be allowed to own one if that is what he enjoys.

Now, all of that said, this issue is dominated by two irrational, loud groups, the NRA Gun Nuts and the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers.

For the Sarah Brady types, you are irrational. YOu can't ban something after people have enjoyed the right for decades. The horse got out of that barn a long time ago, and every jurisdiction that has tried to ban guns has seen the effort fail miserably. Guns are completely illegal in Chicago, but the city still averages a few hundred handgun deaths, every year.

For the gun nuts, the two reasons you give for wanting a gun are also irrational. The first is to protect yourself from an evil government that wants to do bad things to you. The fact is, if the government ever thinks you are someone they need to take out, probably so do most of your neighbors. And no matter how many guns you've stockpiled, they have more, bigger ones and they are better with them. Ask the Branch Davidians how well that worked out.

The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.

"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

Link?

Its a common parroted theme from the brady bunch.

Not only that, it is bogus.


In a 1986 NEJM paper, Drs. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay claimed that defending oneself or one's family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, noting that, "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."(2) This conclusion, though, was severely criticized by numerous investigators, who have not only discerned evidence of methodologic and conceptual errors in the study, but also found that the authors, most significantly, had failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.(3-5)
Guns and Violence


The math is explained here: http://www.savetheguns.com/Text Files/MMM51.txt

And:
In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7

In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “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 percent-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.”8
The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty



It is of interest that there are no laws or combinations of laws that prevent violent crime, outside of the lawful ownership of guns as covered by the second amendment.

This from the CDC study...
"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf


Also of interest:
"Rather than behaving passively or offering no resistance to a criminal, the rate of sustaining injury or further injury was lower in every instance than was the rate of sustaining injury when no self-protection measure was employed at all." National Crime Victimization Survey
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

Link?

Its a common parroted theme from the brady bunch.

Not only that, it is bogus.


In a 1986 NEJM paper, Drs. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay claimed that defending oneself or one's family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, noting that, "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."(2) This conclusion, though, was severely criticized by numerous investigators, who have not only discerned evidence of methodologic and conceptual errors in the study, but also found that the authors, most significantly, had failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.(3-5)
Guns and Violence


The math is explained here: http://www.savetheguns.com/Text Files/MMM51.txt

And:
In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7

In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “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 percent-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.”8
The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty



It is of interest that there are no laws or combinations of laws that prevent violent crime, outside of the lawful ownership of guns as covered by the second amendment.

This from the CDC study...
"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5214.pdf


Also of interest:
"Rather than behaving passively or offering no resistance to a criminal, the rate of sustaining injury or further injury was lower in every instance than was the rate of sustaining injury when no self-protection measure was employed at all." National Crime Victimization Survey

But you can not account for all use which makes all of that crap, crap. Which is the point.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Here's my underlying take.

Haven't handled a firearm since I parted with the military in 1992, and frankly, I'm totally good with that. Don't need one, and don't feel I'm missing anything.

But I think that anyone who wants to own a gun, and isn't a criminal or has a mental illness, and can show he can handle the thing responsibly should be allowed to own one if that is what he enjoys.

Now, all of that said, this issue is dominated by two irrational, loud groups, the NRA Gun Nuts and the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers.

For the Sarah Brady types, you are irrational. YOu can't ban something after people have enjoyed the right for decades. The horse got out of that barn a long time ago, and every jurisdiction that has tried to ban guns has seen the effort fail miserably. Guns are completely illegal in Chicago, but the city still averages a few hundred handgun deaths, every year.

For the gun nuts, the two reasons you give for wanting a gun are also irrational. The first is to protect yourself from an evil government that wants to do bad things to you. The fact is, if the government ever thinks you are someone they need to take out, probably so do most of your neighbors. And no matter how many guns you've stockpiled, they have more, bigger ones and they are better with them. Ask the Branch Davidians how well that worked out.

The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.

"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

Link?

Its a common parroted theme from the brady bunch.

Actually, it was called the Kellerman Study, and it found that in Seattle Washington, for every case of an intruder being killed by a homeowner, there were 39 suicides, 3 accidents and 1 domestic murder. Kellerman moved his study to other cities and got similar results.

Arthur Kellermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOw, all that said, I don't think Government should take away anyone's guns unless they've proven themselves irresponsible. i just don't buy into the myth that your gun makes you safe from the bands of roving barbarians some of you think are rampaging across the landscape.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
94
Points
48
Short guys too, used to be a rule you had to be 6 foot or bigger here, some ACLU types said that wasnt fair either.

Two cruisers were here today matter of fact, some twat in a AMG mercedes thought he could race by at 100mph on my residential street

next time by i stood in his way to make him wait for the cops, then he hit me, i still wouldnt budge so he backed up and took off

Wonder if they found the **** yet

:evil:
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

Link?

Its a common parroted theme from the brady bunch.

Actually, it was called the Kellerman Study, and it found that in Seattle Washington, for every case of an intruder being killed by a homeowner, there were 39 suicides, 3 accidents and 1 domestic murder. Kellerman moved his study to other cities and got similar results.

Arthur Kellermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOw, all that said, I don't think Government should take away anyone's guns unless they've proven themselves irresponsible. i just don't buy into the myth that your gun makes you safe from the bands of roving barbarians some of you think are rampaging across the landscape.

GunCite - Gun Control Web Site: A Gun in the Home


Serious Flaws in Kellerman

We can go back and forth
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
90,247
Reaction score
17,871
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
So that was Lafeyette's blood that was spilled on every battlefield during the American Revolution. No. It was the blood of an armed population that where fighting for their country.

A lot of people have fought valiently in wars, most of them in not very good causes.

The American Revolution would have ended much differently hadn't a few European powers decided that the British Empire needed to be taken down a peg or two. Ironically, we provided the templete for them to lose their American possessions as well.



No one gives a fuck about what other people from other countries did. What I care about is what those who gave you your godamn right to post your fucking bullshit.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153

yes, we can. So I have to go by sensible statistics. Things I know of personally.

Number of people I know who've killed intruders - 0.

Number of people I know of who've been killed by guns in their own home - 2, including a next door neighbor of mine.

Kellerman's stats unfortunately sound pretty reasonable to me.

Son you have been thoroughly refuted.

But lets add a little salt.


http://www.pitt.edu/~upjecon/BERGER/guncontrol2_bib.html


You are entitled to your opinion, but you have nothing to support the position.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
71,787
Reaction score
29,713
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

If even true, itÂ’s legally immaterial, it doesnÂ’t manifest a compelling governmental interest and is no justification for preemption.

We can agree that the data are tragic and unfortunate, but violating the Constitution isnÂ’t the answer.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town

yes, we can. So I have to go by sensible statistics. Things I know of personally.

Number of people I know who've killed intruders - 0.

Number of people I know of who've been killed by guns in their own home - 2, including a next door neighbor of mine.

Kellerman's stats unfortunately sound pretty reasonable to me.

Son you have been thoroughly refuted.

But lets add a little salt.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have nothing to support the position.

You mean other than REAL scientific studies and common sense.

Look, guy, I don't want to take away your guns. I don't think that would be practical, and it isn't right. You really should have a gun if that's what fulfills your life, and you aren't otherwise a danger to yourself and others.

I just dispute it does what you say it does.

It's kind of like the religious nuts. It's just not enough that you agree they shoudl have the right to believe their silly superstitions, you have to embrace their crazy beliefs, too.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
"BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents."

If even true, itÂ’s legally immaterial, it doesnÂ’t manifest a compelling governmental interest and is no justification for preemption.

We can agree that the data are tragic and unfortunate, but violating the Constitution isnÂ’t the answer.

The courts have ruled that gun bans are constitutional... Look up US v. Miller. And I would argue that the 2nd Amendment is about militias, not private gun ownerships. - a WELL REGULATED militia.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
yes, we can. So I have to go by sensible statistics. Things I know of personally.

Number of people I know who've killed intruders - 0.

Number of people I know of who've been killed by guns in their own home - 2, including a next door neighbor of mine.

Kellerman's stats unfortunately sound pretty reasonable to me.

Son you have been thoroughly refuted.

But lets add a little salt.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have nothing to support the position.

You mean other than REAL scientific studies and common sense.

Look, guy, I don't want to take away your guns. I don't think that would be practical, and it isn't right. You really should have a gun if that's what fulfills your life, and you aren't otherwise a danger to yourself and others.

I just dispute it does what you say it does.

It's kind of like the religious nuts. It's just not enough that you agree they shoudl have the right to believe their silly superstitions, you have to embrace their crazy beliefs, too.

AS I SAID YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION. We will never agree. I have also said the true number of deterrent actions are never reported. I can place myself in that category.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
152,454
Reaction score
23,585
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

"Unreported deterence" is like "Jobs saved". It's a nice figure you can throw out there as BS, because no one can prove it one way or the other. .

Fact is, if it's a drawdown between Joe Homeowner and a bad guy intent on killing him, the guy intent on killing him will win because he's more ruthless.
 

tonystewart1

VIP Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
914
Reaction score
159
Points
78
Location
McDowell County, WV
Son you have been thoroughly refuted.

But lets add a little salt.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you have nothing to support the position.

You mean other than REAL scientific studies and common sense.

Look, guy, I don't want to take away your guns. I don't think that would be practical, and it isn't right. You really should have a gun if that's what fulfills your life, and you aren't otherwise a danger to yourself and others.

I just dispute it does what you say it does.

It's kind of like the religious nuts. It's just not enough that you agree they shoudl have the right to believe their silly superstitions, you have to embrace their crazy beliefs, too.

AS I SAID YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION. We will never agree. I have also said the true number of deterrent actions are never reported. I can place myself in that category.

You want to talk about deterrents. People dont break into other peoples houses around here because we are all armed. My wife carries a pistol with her everywhere. I have loaded guns in every room of my house. Most everybody around here is like that. Break into a house and you die. Its that simple. Those kinds of detterents cant be measured.
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

"Unreported deterence" is like "Jobs saved". It's a nice figure you can throw out there as BS, because no one can prove it one way or the other. .

Fact is, if it's a drawdown between Joe Homeowner and a bad guy intent on killing him, the guy intent on killing him will win because he's more ruthless.

Ive refuted yours what else do you have?
 

sparky

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
24,474
Reaction score
11,341
Points
940
Location
paradise
When I refer to our need for guns against the govt I am refering to "we the people". When we all decide that our govt has become tyranical and needs to be replaced then that requires an armed citizenry. Thats how our war for independence was won when the British became to tyranical. Govts fear armed citizens because then we have recourse when they become to overbearing. Thats why the govt wants to take them away.

I don't subscribe to the worship of the Founders a lot on the right do. They were a bunch of rich slaveholders who didn't want to pay for a war (The French and Indian War) that they provoked and they benefited from.

I credit them with establishing a good enough system that allowed something good to come about. Usually revolutions lead to things being a lot worse for everyone when all is said and done.

We won our war against Britian because France and Spain (no lovers of democracy there) decided they were going to get some payback on England for screwing them over in the last couple of wars. Not because there were a bunch of plucky guys with squirrel guns. We won because guys from Europe like Pulaski, Lafayette, Von Stueben (who was as ka-weer as a square donut) came over and showed our guys how to fight a war.

So, oddly, my fellow right wingers, we owe our freedom today to a Gay Prussian officer who showed the hillbillies how to march and stand in formation.

5 star post Joe, sadly lost on the 2nd Amd nutters who equate freedom to firearm ownership.

Sader still to think we'd really be something if we had such attention paid to the other 26

~S~
 

Full-Auto

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
13,555
Reaction score
1,624
Points
153
When I refer to our need for guns against the govt I am refering to "we the people". When we all decide that our govt has become tyranical and needs to be replaced then that requires an armed citizenry. Thats how our war for independence was won when the British became to tyranical. Govts fear armed citizens because then we have recourse when they become to overbearing. Thats why the govt wants to take them away.

I don't subscribe to the worship of the Founders a lot on the right do. They were a bunch of rich slaveholders who didn't want to pay for a war (The French and Indian War) that they provoked and they benefited from.

I credit them with establishing a good enough system that allowed something good to come about. Usually revolutions lead to things being a lot worse for everyone when all is said and done.

We won our war against Britian because France and Spain (no lovers of democracy there) decided they were going to get some payback on England for screwing them over in the last couple of wars. Not because there were a bunch of plucky guys with squirrel guns. We won because guys from Europe like Pulaski, Lafayette, Von Stueben (who was as ka-weer as a square donut) came over and showed our guys how to fight a war.

So, oddly, my fellow right wingers, we owe our freedom today to a Gay Prussian officer who showed the hillbillies how to march and stand in formation.

5 star post Joe, sadly lost on the 2nd Amd nutters who equate freedom to firearm ownership.

Sader still to think we'd really be something if we had such attention paid to the other 26

~S~

LOL Thank you Mr lap dog.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top