"Maybe I'm Wrong About Guns"

[2aguy]

Look at your moronic ass trying to jump around the truth after getting caught in your repeated lies.

"I wasn't talking about THOSE types of gun deaths..."

Why don't you ask someone whether they care whether the gun that killed them was a murder or a suicide.
Be sure to get back to us with your answer dumbass.

AND
Relative to their danger guns are very nearly unregulated.
Background checks? NO
Weapon and ammo limits? NO Way!
Registration? No way. Hell slap[nuts we register cars, warranties, and weddings but guns, NO WAY."
You are ridiculous and your quote?

“the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
Nothing like quoting a guy who wrote Star Wars Fan Fiction to add gravity to your arguments.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are an idiot......

Criminals get around all background checks by using straw buyers and stealing their guns...you moron.

Criminals are not legally required to register their illegal guns...via the Haynes v United States Supreme Court ruling, you uninformed shithead...

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand even the most basic aspects of the issues....you dumb ass.

Guns are one of the most regulated products in the country you moron.........you just pull crap out of your ass and think it has value....

 

[Markle]

Does that reasoning work across the board? Are our food safety laws a waste of time too?

Our incredible Constitution is but four pages. The right to defend ourselves is so important that they gave guns their own Amendment.

It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government. As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.

 

[Markle]

Well that depends. In many western countries they have stricter gun laws, and they see much lower levels of gun crime.

The problem comes when people go "oh look, a gun crime" as if one shooting is comparable to the many, many shootings in the US.

The US's gun murder rate is higher than the UK's murder rate. So yes, there's more to it than just guns. Literally in the US politicians are incapable of bothering to deal with problems.

The UK had a big increase in gun crime in the early 2000s. A lot of people like you were like "they brought in this new gun law in 1997 and gun murders and gun crime is increasing", and it did. But then it went down again because the UK dealt with the situation.

The UK's murder rate is normally about 1.0 to 1.2 per 100,000 people.

In the US only 4 cities above 200,000 people manage to get lower than that.

List of United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three in California and one in Idaho. Out of 100 cities.

Doesn't this get boring, even for you?

Shocking, just shocking isn't it? A country without guns has fewer GUN CRIMES than a country of freedom and liberty with a Constitution.

What say they outlaw and confiscate all knives? Do you think that would lower knife crimes too? Possible.

What you intentionally dodge is the fact that those same European countries have a much higher rate of violent crimes. You know crimes like rape, assault, home invasions. Do you suppose that the fact that those citizens have no way to defend themselves might have something to do with their violent crime rate?

 

[2aguy]

Doesn't this get boring, even for you?

Shocking, just shocking isn't it? A country without guns has fewer GUN CRIMES than a country of freedom and liberty with a Constitution.

What say they outlaw and confiscate all knives? Do you think that would lower knife crimes too? Possible.

What you intentionally dodge is the fact that those same European countries have a much higher rate of violent crimes. You know crimes like rape, assault, home invasions. Do you suppose that the fact that those citizens have no way to defend themselves might have something to do with their violent crime rate?

Their gun crimes are going up.....World War 2 slowed down the destruction of their families....now, their welfare state has wrecked the British family, and fatherless boys and girls are becoming criminals more and more...and turning to violence....

 

[BULLDOG]

Moron......you are doing the same stupid thing joe does....using joe's kellerman research...research Kellerman retracted because it was wrong...you dumb ass......I see now that you are flailing to keep your anti-gun emotions in play...

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

Almost three times is still almost three times dumb ass.

 

[BULLDOG]

Our incredible Constitution is but four pages. The right to defend ourselves is so important that they gave guns their own Amendment.

It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government. As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.

Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.

 

[Markle]

Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

That's quite true. You were attempting to foolishly draw a parallel between a RIGHT, granted to us by the Constitution, and service provided by the government. Even you can see what a silly comparison.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thank you for the courtesy of your reply.

That's quite true. You were attempting to foolishly draw a parallel between a RIGHT, granted to us by the Constitution, and service provided by the government. Even you can see what a silly comparison.

So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?

 

[airplanemechanic]

So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?

6th amendment states everyone is innocent until proven guilty as it states everyone is entitled to due process, and IUPG has been stated as being part of due process by SCOTUS.

Right to privacy: 4th amendment

Amendment 1.2.13.1 Freedom of Association

Any other questions?

 

[2aguy]

Almost three times is still almost three times dumb ass.

His methods were still wrong on his redo of his study...as the post pointed out.......you moron...

 

[2aguy]

Lots of stuff not mentioned in the constitution are still constitutional, dumb ass.

The Right to keep, and Bear Arms, is explicitly listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and you morons still can't seem to understand it....

 

[M14 Shooter]

It appears that food inspection was not high on their list of critical work required of the Federal Government. As you know from your extensive study of our Constitution that leaves food inspection up to the states.

Same with health care and education.

 

[Markle]

So point out where the right to privacy, or the right to freedom of association, or the right to presumption of innocence is mentioned in the constitution, or do you consider those to be services?

Hillsdale College offers a free, online course on our Constitution. You might want to spend a little time learning about the subject.

As you know, there is no right to privacy in our constitution.

As to Freedom of Association, you claim does not exist in our Constitution.

First Amendment​

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Then you mention the presumption of innocence. That too is not in our Constitution but is the result of a number of laws and court cases.

"The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial."

This started with you inferring that our food safety laws were in the constitution.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hillsdale College offers a free, online course on our Constitution. You might want to spend a little time learning about the subject.

As you know, there is no right to privacy in our constitution.

As to Freedom of Association, you claim does not exist in our Constitution.

First Amendment​

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Then you mention the presumption of innocence. That too is not in our Constitution but is the result of a number of laws and court cases.

"The presumption of innocence is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. However, through statutes and court decisions–such as the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Kentucky–it has been recognized as one of the most basic requirements of a fair trial."

This started with you inferring that our food safety laws were in the constitution.

So you acknowledge that we have rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Good.

 

[Markle]

So you acknowledge that we have rights that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution. Good.

Call them what you will but unless it is specified in our Constitution, it is not nearly on the same level. As you well know.

 

[Dadoalex]

2/3 of the people who die from gunshot choose to die from gunshot.
How, exactly, do you propose to protect the user?

Remove the gun.

 

[Dadoalex]

^^^^
This is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.

it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of these restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
Given this, why would anyone support themn, musch less agree to them?

As I said, virtually unregulated.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

watch this amazing debate. highly recommended!

In this country private citizens could buy gatling guns and cannons

My human and constitutional right to own a brand spanking new fully automatic weapon or a fully operational tank is a social injustice

 

[Dadoalex]

You are an idiot......

Criminals get around all background checks by using straw buyers and stealing their guns...you moron.

Criminals are not legally required to register their illegal guns...via the Haynes v United States Supreme Court ruling, you uninformed shithead...

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[3][4]

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You don't know what you are talking about, you don't understand even the most basic aspects of the issues....you dumb ass.

Guns are one of the most regulated products in the country you moron.........you just pull crap out of your ass and think it has value....

WoW.
It seems like you're in favor of my entire agenda
BECAUSE
My Tiny Brained oxygen deprived Querdenken,
The stronger background checks and limits on purchases will eliminate every problem you described.
Thank you for your ill worded, lightly thought, and thoroughly ignorant response.

 

[2aguy]

Remove the gun.

The Japanese have higher suicide rates than we do, you dumb ass...as do about 20 other European countries......

Guns are not the issue in suicide.

Scotland has a higher suicide rate than the U.S......Japan, where only criminals and cops have guns, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Denmark has a higher suicide rate than the u.S.....



France

Germany,

Hungary

Iceland

New Zealand

Poland

Norway

Japan

South Korea



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



Scotland..



15.7 suicides per 100,000

In 2019?

16.7 suicides per 100,000.

And in the U.S.?

13.93 per 100,000



Suicide facts and figures



Changes in Suicide Rates — United States, ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



South Korea 24.7

Hungary 21

Japan 19.4

Belgium 18.4

Finland 16.5

France 14.6

Austria 13.8

Poland 13.8

Czec Republic 12.7

New Zealand 11.9

Denmark 11.3

Sweden 11.1

Norway 10.9

Slovac Republic 10.9

Iceland 10.3

Germany 10.3

Canada 10.2

United States 10.1



A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.
A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table.
The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries.
The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40284130



Another year...Japan and 20 other countries with higher suicide rates than U.S....



https://www.nli-research.co.jp/files/topics/51104_ext_18_en_0.pdf?site=nli