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.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Marxists

lol

All three of them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The problem is this sort of rightwing racism and hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The fact that a gun in the home is more likely to kill the homeowner than an intruder isn’t going to be used to ‘justify’ more gun regulations – that’s a ridiculous lie and slippery slope fallacy contrived by the dishonest right.

And stating these facts isn’t ‘forcing’ anything on anyone.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

That statistic is way skewed since most homeowners don't have to shoot the criminals. They generally back off if the homeowner demonstrates he/she is armed. Many times more home invasions are stopped via guns than there are shootings in the home.

23 Home Invasion Statistics You Should Be Afraid Of

Home invasions aren't always violent. 11% of burglars even remove a door or window while the occupants are home. The average loss is around $2,799 per home invasion.

www.creditdonkey.com

 

[JoeB131]

That statistic is way skewed since most homeowners don't have to shoot the criminals. They generally back off if the homeowner demonstrates he/she is armed. Many times more home invasions are stopped via guns than there are shootings in the home.

Okay, true, this stat doesn't take into account where people didn't shoot the intruder, but it also doesn't take into account all the time a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, either.

The reason why I don't buy into the non-fatal Defensive Gun Use argument is that it indicates way too many criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with - are easily intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. It also assumes that all these Ammosexuals out there who fantasize about the day they get to shoot a criminal would have a chance to do so and not do so 99% of the time seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that DGU's numbers range from 38K to 2 Million show you that there's no real way to measure them accurately.

 

[2aguy]

Okay, true, this stat doesn't take into account where people didn't shoot the intruder, but it also doesn't take into account all the time a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, either.

The reason why I don't buy into the non-fatal Defensive Gun Use argument is that it indicates way too many criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with - are easily intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. It also assumes that all these Ammosexuals out there who fantasize about the day they get to shoot a criminal would have a chance to do so and not do so 99% of the time seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that DGU's numbers range from 38K to 2 Million show you that there's no real way to measure them accurately.

Yeah......lots of criminals are intimidated by a victim with a gun, cause they don't want to get shot...you idiot. There are too many other victims who don't have guns that they can rape, rob, murder and torture .........so yes, if you point a gun at most criminals they run away......their job isn't to get shot, their job is to be a criminal...you doofus.

 

[Hollie]

Okay, true, this stat doesn't take into account where people didn't shoot the intruder, but it also doesn't take into account all the time a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, either.

The reason why I don't buy into the non-fatal Defensive Gun Use argument is that it indicates way too many criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with - are easily intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. It also assumes that all these Ammosexuals out there who fantasize about the day they get to shoot a criminal would have a chance to do so and not do so 99% of the time seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that DGU's numbers range from 38K to 2 Million show you that there's no real way to measure them accurately.

The reason why I don't buy into the Leftisexual ideology of ''criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with...'' is because ''desperation'' doesn't cause mass, coordinated theft as we saw during the BLM riots. ''Desperation'' doesn't cause someone to walk into a CVS pharmacy in California and steal a shopping bags worth of merchandise.

Leftisexuals spend way too much time making excuses for criminals who exploit the weakness and vulnerability of those they steal from, rape, beat and brutalize. Street thugs are not looking for a confrontation. They want an easy victim. A proposed victim with a firearm is not worth the risk. The criminal will move on.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah......lots of criminals are intimidated by a victim with a gun, cause they don't want to get shot...you idiot. There are too many other victims who don't have guns that they can rape, rob, murder and torture .........so yes, if you point a gun at most criminals they run away......their job isn't to get shot, their job is to be a criminal...you doofus.

Actually, your whole premise is that criminals are stupid. They don't confront directly and give you a chance to get your gun. They either wait until you aren't home or they blitz you before you know what hit you.

The reason why I don't buy into the Leftisexual ideology of ''criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with...'' is because ''desperation'' doesn't cause mass, coordinated theft as we saw during the BLM riots. ''Desperation'' doesn't cause someone to walk into a CVS pharmacy in California and steal a shopping bags worth of merchandise.

Oh, no, what we saw during the BLM riots was a country that had quite enough and acted out... not that you learned anything from the experience.

Leftisexuals spend way too much time making excuses for criminals who exploit the weakness and vulnerability of those they steal from, rape, beat and brutalize. Street thugs are not looking for a confrontation. They want an easy victim. A proposed victim with a firearm is not worth the risk. The criminal will move on.

again- gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

 

[Blues Man]

Okay, true, this stat doesn't take into account where people didn't shoot the intruder, but it also doesn't take into account all the time a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, either.

The reason why I don't buy into the non-fatal Defensive Gun Use argument is that it indicates way too many criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with - are easily intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. It also assumes that all these Ammosexuals out there who fantasize about the day they get to shoot a criminal would have a chance to do so and not do so 99% of the time seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that DGU's numbers range from 38K to 2 Million show you that there's no real way to measure them accurately.

So how many times are people threatened by a gun toting domestic abuser exactly ?

And you ignore the times a piece of shit criminal is shot and does not die or is shot at but not hit

 

[Blues Man]

again- gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Debunked BULLSHIT

 

[Flash]

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

A Negro walking into a store with a firearm is 100% more likely to use it to rob the store and shoot the clerk.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, your whole premise is that criminals are stupid. They don't confront directly and give you a chance to get your gun. They either wait until you aren't home or they blitz you before you know what hit you.



Oh, no, what we saw during the BLM riots was a country that had quite enough and acted out... not that you learned anything from the experience.



again- gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

You don't know what you are talking about....you are talking out of your ass......

Criminals, when confronted run away...of all the actual criminals attacking people with guns, only about 235 of them are stupid enough each year to press the attack in the face of a gun armed victim....

We learned a lot from the blm/antifa burning, looing and killing in black neighborhoods...we learned that the democrat party is willing to send out their brown shirts, blm/antifa, to loot, burn and kill blacks in black neighborhoods in order to keep them voting for democrats......

And to the lie about 43......

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

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, true, this stat doesn't take into account where people didn't shoot the intruder, but it also doesn't take into account all the time a domestic abuser threatened his family with a gun, either.

The reason why I don't buy into the non-fatal Defensive Gun Use argument is that it indicates way too many criminals - who are desperate enough to be criminals to start with - are easily intimidated by the mere sight of a gun. It also assumes that all these Ammosexuals out there who fantasize about the day they get to shoot a criminal would have a chance to do so and not do so 99% of the time seems like a bit of a stretch. The fact that DGU's numbers range from 38K to 2 Million show you that there's no real way to measure them accurately.

Guns don't make criminals. Lack of religious faith, lack of ethics and integrity, lack of respect for others, sense of entitlement, poor parenting, addiction, sociopathy makes criminals. I grew up when literally pretty much every household had guns, many of them loaded. And there were no school shootings. People could leave the keys in the ignition of their cars, their homes unlocked. There weren't accidental shootings. I don't recall any on purpose shootings. As far as domestic violence goes, it happens whether or not there is a gun involved.

But indeed, criminals are going to go after the soft targets less likely to be armed far more than they will risk facing somebody with a weapon who can and will use it.

Blaming the weapon of choice instead of the people using the weapons is a sure way to escalate crime.

 

[ClaireH]

Wrong, idiot…..women and minorities are where you find new gun buyers, two sectors that had had the lowest gun ownership raes..

The democrat party destruction of local police, and felon release policies have now convinced minorities and women to buy guns

Exactly. Recently read that there is a huge growing number of black females becoming first time going owners. First time gun owners up in all walks of life.

 

[ClaireH]

People usually ask me why I continue to debate these anti-gun fascists since there is no way to change their minds.....I reply, I am not trying to change their minds, I am honing my discussion points, and trying to present facts, truth and information for the people who tune into the discussion who only get gun information from t.v., movies, and democrat party media sources.........

And....because of people like you, who show me knew information in the debate that I can then use in more discussions....thanks for this, it is great info......

Also, keep in mind USMB has a wide number of readers who never even post, and even taking away the bots there are a lot of people who read and never post. Words on a public message board are way more important than any immediate argument, I sometimes forget that.

Keep up the good fight for truth 2aguy, it matters little what the non-readers have to say about it in the grand scheme of things

 

[JoeB131]

So how many times are people threatened by a gun toting domestic abuser exactly ?

And you ignore the times a piece of shit criminal is shot and does not die or is shot at but not hit

Because they are non-events. We don't know how many times someone ran away because someone waived his penis compensator at them. And we don't know how many battered housewives live in terror that their husbands will use that gun to hunt them and the children down if they try to leave. Because these numbers are largely uncountable.

We do have very countable numbers in how many people DIE from gunshot wounds.

We know that only 200 people are killed by guns fired by civilians that are classified as justified. (Ironically, many of them not home invaders, but domestic abusers.)
We know that 1000 people are shot by the police, but I doubt our police would be so trigger happy if they weren't dealing with a heavily armed public. British cops only shoot 5 people a year on average. In Japan, it's considered a bit of a scandal when the police even take their guns out of their holsters.

We know that we have 19,000 gun homicides and 23,000 gun suicides and 800 gun accidents every year...
We have so many mass shootings you have to rack up an impressive body count to even get the national news to notice.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns don't make criminals. Lack of religious faith, lack of ethics and integrity, lack of respect for others, sense of entitlement, poor parenting, addiction, sociopathy makes criminals. I grew up when literally pretty much every household had guns, many of them loaded. And there were no school shootings. People could leave the keys in the ignition of their cars, their homes unlocked. There weren't accidental shootings. I don't recall any on purpose shootings. As far as domestic violence goes, it happens whether or not there is a gun involved.

Um, check your privilege?

Just because people didn't talk about the unpleasantness didn't mean it wasn't there.

No, guns don't make criminals, but they do facilitate crime.

I grew up in a mostly white neighborhood, but yes, one of my neighbors shot his wife during a domestic argument, then tried to dispose of the body by dismembering it. (Their daughter hung around our peer group, and she developed quite a morbid sense of humor.)

 

[JoeB131]

You don't know what you are talking about....you are talking out of your ass......

Criminals, when confronted run away...of all the actual criminals attacking people with guns, only about 235 of them are stupid enough each year to press the attack in the face of a gun armed victim....

Again, just not credible... you Ammosexuals get on here every day fantasizing about shooting you a criminal (or just some person of color who scared you really bad) and then you are going to have me believe that happy day comes, and you don't shoot? Come on, it isn't credible.

Reality... crime is actually pretty rare, even with the grinding poverty in this country. That's why DGU's are rare. Guns make it easier, though, for that domestic argument over a burnt pot roast to turn into a fatal incident.

And to the lie about 43......

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.....

Never happened. He CLARIFIED it point out that most of the 43 were gun suicides, like suicides are less dead than murder victims. Point is, a gun in the house makes suicide a lot easier. Something a coworker of mine found out when her angsty teenager used his gun to kill himself. Something my next door neighbor figured out after a dry run and the cops didn't take away his gun after he fired a round across the parking lot.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, your whole premise is that criminals are stupid. They don't confront directly and give you a chance to get your gun. They either wait until you aren't home or they blitz you before you know what hit you.



Oh, no, what we saw during the BLM riots was a country that had quite enough and acted out... not that you learned anything from the experience.



again- gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Remarkable how the Leftisexuals are flailing their Pom Poms for BLM. It's largely a criminal enterprise and a get-rich-quick scheme but self hating white Leftisexuals took it as some sort of victory that cities burned and property was destroyed.

Again - you play with numbers you don't understand.

 

[JoeB131]

Remarkable how the Leftisexuals are flailing their Pom Poms for BLM. It's largely a criminal enterprise and a get-rich-quick scheme but self hating white Leftisexuals took it as some sort of victory that cities burned and property was destroyed.

Quite the contrary..

I would like to have had us reform the police when BLM was peacefully protesting between Trayvon Martin and George Floyd.

Sadly, white people only care about things when you threaten to break their stuff. We saw that in the 1960's when we had race riots, we saw that in 1992 when we had riots after the Rodney King verdict.

Shouldn't be that way. We should have realized we had a problem and addressed it years before any riots broke out. We didn't. Then you scratch your big monkey cranium and wonder why they riot.

I wondered what took so long.

Again - you play with numbers you don't understand.

I understand the numbers just fine... it's your side that was so afraid of the numbers you insisted the CDC stop studying gun violence.