Just another day in America. Guns keeping people safe... 8 dead... the dead can't be killed, therefore they're safe.

[Lastamender]

Utah shooting: A man killed his family after wife filed for divorce

Police found eight people, including five children, dead in a Utah home during a welfare check.

www.bbc.com

"A family of eight - including five children - have been found shot dead inside a rural home in Enoch City, in the US state of Utah."

Well, I guess after Sandy Hook, we know nothing will be done about this.

How many killed in Chicago and the other shitholes run by gun control Democrats? Any idea?

 

[westwall]

Uh, yeah, they were so peaceful they shot 4 ATF agents, molested children and sold illegally modified guns


No, Cleetus, a deranged person with a gun is going to be able to kill people a lot easier than one with a baseball bat.

Oh, by the way, was confirmed that this was a murder suicide by a family annihilator

CALLED IT!

They were defending themselves from an illegal attack, billy Joe Bob.

And if that is the case then the mom should have had a gun. She would have been able to kill the prick.

 

[Flash]

Utah shooting: A man killed his family after wife filed for divorce

Police found eight people, including five children, dead in a Utah home during a welfare check.

www.bbc.com

"A family of eight - including five children - have been found shot dead inside a rural home in Enoch City, in the US state of Utah."

Well, I guess after Sandy Hook, we know nothing will be done about this.

Guns didn't kill anybody.

Some crazy assholes did.

 

[JoeB131]

They were defending themselves from an illegal attack, billy Joe Bob.

Really?
The ATF had a warrant. They knew they were ATF agents.

If you really want to argue the illegality of a warrant, then you do that in court, not by shooting it out with ATF agents, and then committing mass suicide when you know your cult leader is going to prison.

And if that is the case then the mom should have had a gun. She would have been able to kill the prick.

Uh, yeah, given that this is Utah, we are probably talking Mormon Cultist... so she'd have sat their and taken it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Or if there was no gun in the house, then no one would have been killed.

More family members are killed with knives or fists than guns.

 

[Flash]

How many killed in Chicago and the other shitholes run by gun control Democrats? Any idea?

Every day there is a massacre of shootings in Democrat controlled Chicago. Even more on weekends and even more than that on holidays. The same in many other Democrat controlled big city shitholes. Many with strict gun control laws.

 

[JoeB131]

More family members are killed with knives or fists than guns.

Um, not really. Knives make up only 10% of murders. Fists only make up 4%. Murder by firearm make up 74% of homicides.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No evidence that this was a criminal who was released. At first blush, this sounds like a murder/suicide. And Utah, you know that some kind of Mormon Craziness was involved.

No evidence Mormonism was involved either, right?

 

[JoeB131]

No evidence Mormonism was involved either, right?

Utah.
Five Kids
Do the math.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Utah.
Five Kids
Do the math.

Leftist judges frequently bestow leniency on violent criminals
Do the math

See how that works?

 

[2aguy]

Utah shooting: A man killed his family after wife filed for divorce

Police found eight people, including five children, dead in a Utah home during a welfare check.

www.bbc.com

"A family of eight - including five children - have been found shot dead inside a rural home in Enoch City, in the US state of Utah."

Well, I guess after Sandy Hook, we know nothing will be done about this.

Yeah....doesn't happen anywhere else...you doofus...

India...

The Burari deaths were a ritual mass suicide[1] of eleven family members of the Chundawat family[2]

Burari deaths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Canada....

He seemed like the perfect son. Then he confessed to slaughtering his family with a crowbar

The untold story of a quadruple murder in Markham

torontolife.com

14 killed here.....

Suicide after massacre of 14 at family reunion

A 35-year-old tax professional killed 14 members of his own family, including his parents and a three-month-old daughter, in one of the grisliest massacres in the country in recent years before committing suicide early today, police said.

www.telegraphindia.com

 

[2aguy]

No evidence that this was a criminal who was released. At first blush, this sounds like a murder/suicide. And Utah, you know that some kind of Mormon Craziness was involved.


Probably not, since a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

Wouldn't be surprised if we find out this was domestic violence, given the remoteness of the home and that they were all Mormon crazies.

Lying again.......? Of course....

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
======

Read more: CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

In 1993,Dr. Kellermann, who was funded in 1991 by a CDC grant, had to soften the ’43 times’ number to ‘2.7 times.’ He concluded, “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.” Kellerman thought the 2.7 number would not sound quite so impossible.
These papers, and many others from the medical community, were criticized by researchers who statistically showed that Kellermann’s conclusions were wildly wrong. Kellermann used a technique that depended on matching subjects and controls, except that the subject and control groups did not match. The subject group lived a very high-risk, alcohol and drug-filled lifestyle, while the controls did not.
Kellermann had singled out people who exist at the edges of society. Kellermann did not study normal gun owners, just criminals who had guns, but he exaggerated his findings.

Because of this confusion, Kellerman helped change American gun politics by injecting unwarranted fear into the gun debate. Too many journalists just read the conclusion of a “scientific” paper, and skip over the rest as too complex for them.

Despite these serious methodological problems, Kellermann’s results are still widely accepted in the public health field.​

Public-health advocates appear willing to run with any published study, regardless of how weak its methods, just so long as the findings are congenial to their assumption that guns are dangerous.
Then, in 1996, after Congress requested Kellermann’s original data, which he failed to release, Congress cut funding to the CDC for advocacy research. No funding was cut for medical research, just advocacy research.

CDC’s Antigun Agenda On Display: So-Called Experts Abuse Our Trust

 

[2aguy]

It does appear as if the crime was committed with a gun.

You don't need a gun to murder your family. A Quick trip to walmart will get you what you need.....for a lot less too...18.00 for a bottle of anti-freeze....

Despite confessing to police that she poisoned her husband, son and daughter with antifreeze, Diane Staudte says she is innocent.

Mother convicted of poisoning her family maintains her innocence

Diane Staudte was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder in 2016.

abcnews.go.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

> 60% of the murders in the US are committed by black males, a demographic which makes up about 6.5% of the population.
Thus... it's not the guns.

 

[miketx]

Uh, yeah, they were so peaceful they shot 4 ATF agents, molested children and sold illegally modified guns

Tv told you that?

 

[2aguy]

Except a gun in the home increases the probability that a domestic incident will turn into a fatality. How many women have been shot with their own guns in suicides, domestic disputes or dumb accidents.



We have far fewer stabbing murders than gun murders... Durr...


Does your doctor know you are off your medications?

No......having a criminal living in the home increases that chance, you lying asshat.

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.

 

[2aguy]

Uh, yeah, they were so peaceful they shot 4 ATF agents, molested children and sold illegally modified guns


No, Cleetus, a deranged person with a gun is going to be able to kill people a lot easier than one with a baseball bat.

Oh, by the way, was confirmed that this was a murder suicide by a family annihilator

CALLED IT!

You don't need a gun to murder your family.....many cheaper ways to do that.......

 

[2aguy]

If someone is deranged enough to start shooting family members, not sure why you don't think they aren't deranged enough to trap them in a room and set the house on fire or hit them with a baseball bat or kill them with a large kitchen knife(Idaho ring any bells?) or drive the family car over a cliff(in the news recently). The list goes on and on. The gun is not the problem, the deranged person is the problem.

Doesn't take a gun......just a real desire to kill your family....

The massacre began with a cup of tea.

On April 14, 2008, Shabnam laced her family’s evening drinks with a sedative Saleem bought with the help of a fruit seller, the court found. Then, as the family slept, Shabnam called Saleem – who arrived with an ax.

“Shabnam held up the heads of each member one by one and I slashed their throats and killed them,” Saleem confessed the day after the murders to Bilal Ahmad, a tea seller with connections to the district police chief.

She killed 7 members of her own family while pregnant. Now her son could be orphaned by execution | CNN

Shabnam and her lover, Saleem, were found guilty of murdering seven members of her family and sentenced to hang. If she is executed, Shabnam will be first woman given the death penalty in India since 1955. She will leave behind a son, Bittu, who is appealing to the President Ram Nath Kovind to...

www.cnn.com

 

[Auld Phart]

i would not be surprised if it is domestic violence. That said, this town is not in a remote area. It is on I-15, which is thee interstate coming from southern california, through las vegas, and onward to denver or salt lake city. Even I can say I drove through this town more than once.

Father identified as suspect in murder-suicide of Utah family of 8

Michael Haight, 42, was described as a suspect in the deaths of his wife, their five children and his mother-in-law.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Auld Phart]

Utah.
Five Kids
Do the math.

Sure they weren't Productive Protestants?

Or Catholic Cultists?