No one is going to take your guns

[Quantum Windbag]

It has a direct link to Kellerman's revised claim that you are approximately 2.7 times as likely to die if someone in the house has a gun than if they don't. The fact that it then goes on to debunk that would be informative to an intelligent person. The fact that Kellerman's original claim that you were 43 times more like to die under those circumstances assumed that no one who didn't have gun death in the family even owned a gun would be informative to an honest person. The fact that you missed both of those points is informative to everyone who is not a moron.

When you post something DIRECTLY from Kellerman himself, then you can come back and talk to me. .

Not about how Gunwhack.com has skewed his statement or taken things out of context to try to make their case that guns in the house really do increase your chance of being murdered.

Have you posted anything directly from him, or did you just pop the number 43 from thin air? Keep in mind that the original study, the one that found you were 37 times as likely to kill yourself if there was a gun in the host and that is used to extrapolate the claim that it is 43 times more dangerous to won a gun than not own one, is unavailable to the general public.

Here is the link to prove it.

MMS: Error

The second study, on the other hand, is available. I provided an article that linked to it, but you have a problem with following links if you have to click more than once so I will provide a link now just for you.

MMS: Error


Here is the link where he corrected the second paper based on criticism from his peers.

MMS: Error

Care to link to proof your 43 times as likely claim is legit despite the fact that Kellerman himself had to walk it back?

 

[JoeB131]

"Although I regret the error, it does not change the validity of our original response"

"Their finding — that the legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death — is generally consistent with our results."

Wow, guy, you are just desperate for any reed of "But, but, but, Kellerman can't be true...."

Sorry, man, he is.

Deal with it.

The cost of your penis substitutes are 32,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries a year.

 

[Amelia]

[
If Kellerman says Kellerman isn't true and you're still citing stats Kellerman has disavowed, then the problem seems to be yours.

Kellerman has never disavowed his study. You need to stop reading gun nutter websites.

lol. Can't stop what I've never started.

I'm going to take Wiki's word over yours on Kellerman's position about his study. They say he has backed away from the 43:1 claim and replaced it with the order of magnitude lower 2.7:1

 

[OODA_Loop]

Joe. Bitch-slapped again by the facts.

 

[Geaux4it]

Joe. Bitch-slapped again by the facts.

he has to feel like the Quarry brothers who got worked over by Ali every other week on TV

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

"Although I regret the error, it does not change the validity of our original response"

"Their finding — that the legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death — is generally consistent with our results."

Wow, guy, you are just desperate for any reed of "But, but, but, Kellerman can't be true...."

Sorry, man, he is.

Deal with it.

The cost of your penis substitutes are 32,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries a year.

Joe, your gun debate talking points lack credibility

-Geaux

 

[eflatminor]

Why are you trying to pass off a gun-nutter cite as a claim that Kellerman "revised" his numbers?

Well, when you can't refute the facts, attack the source...works every time.

Kellerman's study has been thoroughly debunked from numerous sources. This one was published in the oh-so-right-wing Journal of the American Medical Association:

Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home...[Fulltext, Aug 5 JAMA. 1998;280:473-475] (c) AMA 1998

Guy, your link leads to guncite.com, NOT JAMA.

And it's an article by know gun crank, Gary Kleck.

It was published in JAMA dumbshit.

But of course, if someone doesn't espouse your point of view, he's a 'crank'. Thanks for making my point about refuting facts and attacking the source. How typically pathetic.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, but that was before the NRA went nuts.

The NRA used to support sensible gun laws.

For instance, when the Black Panthers armed themselves in the 1960's. (After a couple of their members were shot by police in their sleep) Governor Ronald Reagan signed a law against


Black Panthers and Gun Control: The NRA's Flip Flop - The Root



So what has changed?

Basically, the country did. Hunting fell out of fashion as a sport, kind of being reduced from a middle class passtime to the passtime of sadistic rednecks. The number of homes with a firearm in them dropped from 60% in the 1950's to about 39% today.

Then the gun industry decided, we need to sell as many guns to that 39% as we can. And we can only do that if they are really, really scared. So we make darn sure there are enough loopholes to keep the crooks and the crazy armed so other people will want guns, too.

You just type any old dumbassed thing that pops into your head, don't you?

You are just NOW realizing that, Dave?!?!

Oh, no, I've known Joe just files the serial numbers off of crap he cuts and pastes from the Workers World Party website for years. He's incapable of independent rational thought.

 

[daveman]

Ever notice how all discussions about guns always end in gun nutters induldging their snuff film fantasies?

...says the guy standing up to his ankles in the blood of children accidentally killed by firearms.

Don't pretend you give a shit about the victims, because you don't. You want two things here:

1. Removing freedom from Americans.

2. People unable to defend themselves from criminals.

If you had your way, this woman would be raped and murdered.

And he wants that. He and his fellow tyrants WANT and NEED gun violence. They CELEBRATE school shootings. They DANCED WITH JOY when Lanza completed his massacre.

They truly are pure evil.

Progressivism is a death cult.

 

[daveman]

Note the left hand holding the blouse in to keep it free from tangling with the firearm and to secure the pants at the waistline ... The arm and hand also work to reduce the velocity of incoming rounds should they hit the abdomen.
You have to love it when they even get the ad right.

My wife's take on the picture...

Hair should be back (behind the shoulders, or preferably, tied back) so it doesn't get in her eyes or tangled in the action.
She should be wearing a belt.
Whoever said to match that top with a suit jacket should be arrested by the fashion police.
She's probably be served better with a shoulder holster, especially for what looks like a revolver. (The cylinder can snag on the waistband.)
The sleeves on the jacket are long enough to be a problem.
She needs to ALWAYS use a 2-handed grip! (Liz and I were taught a Weaver stance, which is looks like she is using.)

I disagree with your lovely wife. A camisole under a suit jacket is sexy as hell.

 

[FactFinder]

All that stuff is fine if you maintain responsibility. Five-year-old New Hampshire boy accidentally shoots self - News Local New Hampshire - Boston.com

 

[daveman]

Uh, no, guy, the difference there is, you can't promise me that your gun won't ever be used in a school shooting.

You can't promise me a criminal won't try to harm my wife and children.

But again, it's not like you give a shit about victims of criminals. As a matter of fact, you want MORE victims...because that's the result when you want law-abiding people disarmed.

Really, guy, then why does Japan, where they don't let citizens own guns, only have 11 gun murders a year and we have 11,000?

Strikes me that as long as the NRA insists on arming the crooks, we are going to have a problem.

You morons never have gotten around to explaining why criminals are going to obey your gun laws.

Of course, that's only because you can't, because they won't.

Stop trying to deny that you want more victims of crime. Because that's all the laws you want will guarantee.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Although I regret the error, it does not change the validity of our original response"

"Their finding — that the legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death — is generally consistent with our results."

Wow, guy, you are just desperate for any reed of "But, but, but, Kellerman can't be true...."

Sorry, man, he is.

Deal with it.

The cost of your penis substitutes are 32,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries a year.

If you want to make yourself look significantly more intelligent than you are I would suggest you stop quoting extrapolations of his first report, and stick with the second report, which estimates lees than a 3% increase in the risk of owning a firearm over not owning one. I would suggest you also learn to debate his methodology, and why he chose to use the least accurate statistical modeling to make his point, but I doubt you can pretend to be that smart.

 

[daveman]

Kellerman has never disavowed his study. You need to stop reading gun nutter websites.

He revised the numbers you keep quoting downward by a significant factor.

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

I guess that makes you wrong, as usual.

Why are you trying to pass off a gun-nutter cite as a claim that Kellerman "revised" his numbers?

Dood. Even KELLERMAN thinks you're a moron.

 

[daveman]

Because the Japanese raise accountable and respectful families and members of society.

They are also incredibly racist and genetically pure.

And they don't have guns...

YOu know, kind of hard to have gun murders when you don't have guns.

Never saw anyone get beaten to death with racial purity or respectful families.

They also report a significant increase in violent home invasions over the last few years, but don't let that get in the way of your delusions that Japan is a great place because they don't have guns.

Japan's Violent Crime Rate at Record High, Nihon Keizai Says - Bloomberg

Aug. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Japan had the highest number of murders, armed robberies and other violent crimes during the first six months of this year since it began keeping such data in 1989, the Nihon Keizai newspaper said, citing a police report. The rate of arrests fell to their lowest level ever, it said.

A total of 11,304 such crimes were reported during the period. That's an increase of 17 percent from the same period the year before, the newspaper said. The rate of arrests fell below 50 percent for the first time to 49 percent.

The number of robberies rose 25 percent to 3,919, while cases of homicide increased 12 percent to 735, the report said. There was also a 10 percent increase in reported rape cases. The number of murders and arsons committed by juveniles increased 87 percent to 131, according to the newspaper.

A total of 945 elementary school students became victims of sex crimes, up 46 percent. The number of cases involving all types of crimes fell 0.9 percent to 12,574, the first such decline on a half-year basis in eight years, the report said.​

 

[daveman]

And Quantum Crazy Person now wants to play "How to lie with statistics..."

Gun Regulation: U.S Gun Homicides vs. Japan - YouTube

Remember, folks -- people killed with guns are MORE DEAD than people killed with other weapons.

 

[daveman]

 

[Spoonman]

Dear Democrats:

You own whatever comes out of this. If government officials are shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens, the onus is on you. There are just some things you don't do: Don't hit on another man's woman, ride another man's Harley, and don't mess with his guns.

I'm sure the same goes for the ladies as well.

Drama Queen alert.


"shot and/or killed in New York for taking firearms from law abiding citizens"?

Uh - you're saying law abiding citizens would murder? That actually would make taking their guns away the right thing to do, doncha think?

not according to james Madison. in fact he encouraged us to create a militia to fight against infringements like this

 

[Spoonman]

 

[Ernie S.]

[
If Kellerman says Kellerman isn't true and you're still citing stats Kellerman has disavowed, then the problem seems to be yours.

Kellerman has never disavowed his study. You need to stop reading gun nutter websites.

1993

In 1993, Kellermann responded to the criticism of his 1986 paper with a case-control study[13] of the rates of all homicides in the victim's home in Cleveland, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Seattle over five years, in homes where a gun was kept versus homes where a gun was not. This study found that
Kellermann's 1993 Table 4 Variables Included in the Final Conditional Logistic-Regression Model Variable Adjusted Odds Ratio 95% CI
Any household member used illicit drugs 5.7 2.6-12.6
Home rented 4.4 2.3-8.2
Any household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home 4.4 2.2-8.8
Case subject or control lived alone 3.7 2.1-6.6
Gun or guns kept in the home 2.7 1.6-4.4
Any household member arrested 2.5 1.6-4.1

23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home
35.8% of the controls (homes where there was not a homicide) kept a firearm in their home
45.4% of all victims of homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home
57.7% - 64.7% of victims of firearm homicides lived in a home where one or more guns were kept (correction to original paper)
other protective measures, (reinforced doors, deadbolts, burglar alarms, and bars on the windows) were associated with small (about 0.8 times) reductions in risk of homicide in the home
after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home (see table at right).
From wikipedia. same article as before.

In other words, Kellermann's 1993 study debunked his 1986 and 1988 findings.