So this guy from Chicago, shows up at a Florida Convenience store showing the clerk he has a gun. Clerk shows robber his gun. Yeah for 2nd amend.

[Mikeoxenormous]

Shotgun-wielding would-be robber claims ‘I’m from Chicago, bro,’ leaves as clerk displays gun

Rakim Stephen Tate allegedly walked into a Florida convenience store with a shotgun during an attempted robbery but walked out when a clerk displayed his own weapon, authorities said.

nypost.com

The Marxists so hate people who are free to carry a weapon, just in case crap like this happens in your neighborhood. I had said many time before, when there isnt anything left to loot in the inner cities, the savages will move on to places that still have stuff to steal. Problem for those Marxists idiots when you move to a carry state, you might just meet your maker. Luckily for the thug, he got away from the clerk, but not the police that are respected down here.

 

[2aguy]

Shotgun-wielding would-be robber claims ‘I’m from Chicago, bro,’ leaves as clerk displays gun

Rakim Stephen Tate allegedly walked into a Florida convenience store with a shotgun during an attempted robbery but walked out when a clerk displayed his own weapon, authorities said.

nypost.com

The Marxists so hate people who are free to carry a weapon, just in case crap like this happens in your neighborhood. I had said many time before, when there isnt anything left to loot in the inner cities, the savages will move on to places that still have stuff to steal. Problem for those Marxists idiots when you move to a carry state, you might just meet your maker. Luckily for the thug, he got away from the clerk, but not the police that are respected down here.

This is why the democrat party sent their shock troops, blm and antifa into black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities.......they know that the democrat party gun control laws keep those neighborhoods unarmed, except for the criminals. They don't send blm and antifa to burn, loot and kill in the suburbs because those people have guns.

The modern gun control laws started in New York when the democrats enacted them to protect the gangs working for the democrat party......

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Shocking...

 

[Likkmee]

Shocking...

Yo muffa. Gimme a cotton of Noopote and a six of 45z

 

[JoeB131]

The Marxists so hate people who are free to carry a weapon, just in case crap like this happens in your neighborhood. I had said many time before, when there isnt anything left to loot in the inner cities, the savages will move on to places that still have stuff to steal. Problem for those Marxists idiots when you move to a carry state, you might just meet your maker. Luckily for the thug, he got away from the clerk, but not the police that are respected down here.

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

And every gun owner must assess his comfort level with that risk.

I'm alive today because I carry a gun. I will never, ever not have a gun.

Ever...

 

[1srelluc]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

Then don't own one if you're skeered someone in your household will use it to pop you in your sleep.

 

[Hollie]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

Or we recognize that leftist policies embolden and encourage criminals. You may choose to pray at the altar of social justice by being a willingly accomplice to crime and choosing to be your own worst enemy.

Others. Not so much.

 

[westwall]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

Which is lie. Proven a lie decades ago, yet little liar you trots it out like the good parrot.

DURRRRRR

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

Yeah, and yet I am more likely to be killed by a distracted driver than by a gun.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Then don't own one if you're skeered someone in your household will use it to pop you in your sleep.

He should be more worried that his other half might wake his Johnson off, now that Lorena Bobbit started a trend.


Lorena Bobbitt is best known for infamously cutting off her husband John Wayne Bobbitt ‘s penis in 1993 before fleeing the scene and throwing his mutilated organ into a field. The incident made global headlines and has been extensively covered in several documentaries and made-for-TV movies.

Lorena Bobbit Update: Where is She Now 2020? | Heavy.com​

heavy.com/entertainment/2020/05/lorena-bobbitt-update-today-now/

 

[Likkmee]

And every gun owner must assess his comfort level with that risk.

I'm alive today because I carry a gun. I will never, ever not have a gun.

Ever...

I wear a security six stainless in da shower

 

[TheParser]

I had said many time before, when there isnt anything left to loot in the inner cities, the savages will move on to places that still have stuff to steal.

That is the crux of today's problem.

Before the Civil Rights laws of the 1960s, the young gentlemen would limit their crime careers to their own neighborhoods.

Today, however, they are emboldened to enter the nice areas of every city to commit mayhem.

They know that progressive politicians and prosecutors will not stop them.

That is why a lot of ordinary folks feel that they need to carry a firearm.

 

[Blues Man]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

43 times zero is what?

 

[1srelluc]

I wear a security six stainless in da shower

Got ya beat.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

Then don't have them in your home, but stop trying to force your opinions on everyone else.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Then don't have them in your home, but stop trying to force your opinions on everyone else.

Joe is a pussy, he used to live in upper Shitcago, until the rabid savages started showing up in his hood. Then like a good white racist he upped and left....

 

[Anathema]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

I don’t like most of my family members enough for that to bother me… even if it was a real stat (which it isn’t).

 

[2aguy]

Or we recognize a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a criminal...

And that is a lie, you know it is a lie. The guy who actually did the research and came up with that number retracted it and did the study over....you lying asshat.....

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

 

[JoeB131]

Holy Shit, you trot out the Kellerman Study, and they all go fucking nuts.

Then don't own one if you're skeered someone in your household will use it to pop you in your sleep.

No, I'm scared one might shoot up a theater or a shopping mall or a parade because we let crazy people buy guns.

Or we recognize that leftist policies embolden and encourage criminals. You may choose to pray at the altar of social justice by being a willingly accomplice to crime and choosing to be your own worst enemy.

Europe is further to the left than we are and they have NOWHERE near our crime levels.

Which is lie. Proven a lie decades ago, yet little liar you trots it out like the good parrot.

Hey, here's how you prove it's a lie. Actually do the study over again, and see if you come up with a different result.

You won't. Kellerman repeated the study in several cities and came up with the same result.

Yeah, and yet I am more likely to be killed by a distracted driver than by a gun.

Okay, but here's the thing. Distracted driving is against the law. Cops see you with a Cell phone, they'll give you a ticket.

Then don't have them in your home, but stop trying to force your opinions on everyone else.

Funny, you guys don't feel the same way about abortion, gay marriage, drugs...

I don’t like most of my family members enough for that to bother me… even if it was a real stat (which it isn’t).

Why am I not surprised.