We should listen to the “experts”

[JoeB131]

Somebody who wants to kill another is not going to try and punch them to death. If they don't have access to a gun, they will use a knife. If not a knife, a club. If a mass murder, they will simply rent a U-Haul and run people over.

Yeah, all those things are more problematic than a gun. A gun can turn a 90lbs weakling with a tiny dick into a murder machine, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

It must be for you because you actually believe that the culture of people has nothing to do with their behavior--it's the guns.

um,yeah, let's look at that. Canada is about as close to American Culture as you can get, and they have MUCH more restrictive gun laws than we have.

And nowhere near the crime rates.

But the smart cops realize that's impossible to do in this country, and have no problem with armed citizens. They know the statistics, they know that most legal armed carriers have had no criminal past. I just renewed my license last month. I had to provide a new passport picture, get a totally new background check, was electronically fingerprinted. Even during our shutdown, they didn't let the license go until next year. They want that information immediately.

Not sure who these Smart cops are... The fact that they keep having to arm themselves like soldiers tells me that they aren't thrilled when the bad guys are armed better than insurgents.

You say you live in Chicago and talk like you live out in the sticks. If you do live in Chicago, you understand that most of the shootings take place because of drug activity, just like what goes on here. It has nothing to do with economic inequality. Anybody can get a job, especially before the Wuhan virus hit.

I live in one of the suburbs. For my first 40 years (less the time I spent on active duty), I lived either in Chicago proper or in Cicero, a burb right next to Chicago that has a lot of the same problems. And, no, a lot of these kids CAN'T get jobs other than drug dealing, that's the problem.

So again, let's create a system of guaranteed employment. Every American has a right to a renumerative job. FDR called for this in his final inaugural address in 1945.

But don't whine that when you impoverish whole segments of the population, that you needs you a gun because they might take your stuff.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yeah, all those things are more problematic than a gun. A gun can turn a 90lbs weakling with a tiny dick into a murder machine, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

It also gives a frail 25 year old girl equal protection to a 240 lbs muscle bound male, and the same thing applies for our elderly population. Cops are only good after a crime is committed. By then it's too late in many instances.

um,yeah, let's look at that. Canada is about as close to American Culture as you can get, and they have MUCH more restrictive gun laws than we have.

And nowhere near the crime rates.

And nowhere near our diversity either, especially with people of color.

Not sure who these Smart cops are... The fact that they keep having to arm themselves like soldiers tells me that they aren't thrilled when the bad guys are armed better than insurgents.

Bad guys, correct. Good guys, only few have a problem with that.

I live in one of the suburbs. For my first 40 years (less the time I spent on active duty), I lived either in Chicago proper or in Cicero, a burb right next to Chicago that has a lot of the same problems. And, no, a lot of these kids CAN'T get jobs other than drug dealing, that's the problem.

So again, let's create a system of guaranteed employment. Every American has a right to a renumerative job. FDR called for this in his final inaugural address in 1945.

But don't whine that when you impoverish whole segments of the population, that you needs you a gun because they might take your stuff.

I need a gun to protect myself--not my stuff. Any one of these so-called impoverished kids can join the military. Any one of them can get into my former line of work that are still begging people to take the job, even if they have to train you. Any one of these people can go to a trade school. Loans are available, especially for them. The construction industry is still hurting for workers. All you have to do is pass a drug test.

How is it Chicago is such a great place that there were no jobs before Covid, and plenty of jobs here? Every industrial area I delivered to were littered with Help Wanted signs. People who loaded or unloaded my truck used to ask me if I knew anybody looking for a job. But you had no jobs over there? Tsk-tsk. What a terrible shithole to live in.

 

[JoeB131]

It also gives a frail 25 year old girl equal protection to a 240 lbs muscle bound male, and the same thing applies for our elderly population. Cops are only good after a crime is committed. By then it's too late in many instances.

Again, your wank fantasies aside, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

I need a gun to protect myself--not my stuff. Any one of these so-called impoverished kids can join the military.

Uh, do you know how hard it is to get into the military in peacetime? The military rejects 80% of the people who apply.

80% of Military Recruitments Turned Down

The U.S. military has been turning down applicants in droves, and it's not just because of the drawdown.

www.military.com

How is it Chicago is such a great place that there were no jobs before Covid, and plenty of jobs here?

Wait, buddy, you said that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY FIND A JOB at a company that offered health insurance, which is why you stayed at the company you were at. So clearly, the job market wasn't that great over there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, your wank fantasies aside, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

And as an American, that's my choice to make whether to have a gun or not. Not yours. If you don't want a gun, don't get a gun, but don't tell me what I have to do.

Uh, do you know how hard it is to get into the military in peacetime? The military rejects 80% of the people who apply.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there aren't any jobs. Like I said, we used to have tons of them here. What is poverty? Poverty is the situation of having little or no money. The solution to poverty is to get money. The key to getting money is getting a job, not having a family until you are financially stable, and don't get involved in drugs or crime. Anybody can do that, any color, any shape or size with the exception of those mentally or physically incapable from doing so.

When I got out of school, I took a part-time job at a car wash for minimum wage. When I got out of the car wash, I got a full-time job in factory for minimum wage. When I left there, I went to a vending company for minimum wage which is where I learned how to drive a truck. When I left there, I learned how to deliver medical equipment and eventually repair equipment.

All along the way, I learned several or many things with each and every job. Nobody was knocking at the front door of my parents house asking me to work for 20 bucks an hour fresh out of high school with no experience.

Wait, buddy, you said that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY FIND A JOB at a company that offered health insurance, which is why you stayed at the company you were at. So clearly, the job market wasn't that great over there.

It was great, the problem for me was all my restrictions. If not for that, I would have had a job at a major carrier with all kinds of benefits. However general labor was everywhere. Much like I did, any one of these young people could take any one of these jobs and get experience such as operating certain machinery, using an electric pallet jack or tow motor. Using an overhead crane. Some jobs paid shit and others paid pretty damn good for general labor. So what was the major problem? Drugs. Most better paying jobs drug screen, and younger people today would rather live at home than giving up the pot to work and make real money, and potentially learning a new trade.

 

[2aguy]

Somebody who wants to kill another is not going to try and punch them to death. If they don't have access to a gun, they will use a knife. If not a knife, a club. If a mass murder, they will simply rent a U-Haul and run people over.

Yeah, all those things are more problematic than a gun. A gun can turn a 90lbs weakling with a tiny dick into a murder machine, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

It must be for you because you actually believe that the culture of people has nothing to do with their behavior--it's the guns.

um,yeah, let's look at that. Canada is about as close to American Culture as you can get, and they have MUCH more restrictive gun laws than we have.

And nowhere near the crime rates.

View attachment 337334

But the smart cops realize that's impossible to do in this country, and have no problem with armed citizens. They know the statistics, they know that most legal armed carriers have had no criminal past. I just renewed my license last month. I had to provide a new passport picture, get a totally new background check, was electronically fingerprinted. Even during our shutdown, they didn't let the license go until next year. They want that information immediately.

Not sure who these Smart cops are... The fact that they keep having to arm themselves like soldiers tells me that they aren't thrilled when the bad guys are armed better than insurgents.

You say you live in Chicago and talk like you live out in the sticks. If you do live in Chicago, you understand that most of the shootings take place because of drug activity, just like what goes on here. It has nothing to do with economic inequality. Anybody can get a job, especially before the Wuhan virus hit.

I live in one of the suburbs. For my first 40 years (less the time I spent on active duty), I lived either in Chicago proper or in Cicero, a burb right next to Chicago that has a lot of the same problems. And, no, a lot of these kids CAN'T get jobs other than drug dealing, that's the problem.

So again, let's create a system of guaranteed employment. Every American has a right to a renumerative job. FDR called for this in his final inaugural address in 1945.

But don't whine that when you impoverish whole segments of the population, that you needs you a gun because they might take your stuff.

Moron, their gun crime rate is going up, not down, while ours is going down, not up...you can't explain that with your dumb ass theories...

Canada.....

Why Gun Violence Is Surging In Toronto

According to Canada's government statistics agency, gun violence overall rose by more than 40% in Canada between 2013 and 2017, with much of that increase driven by incidents in Toronto.

Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders says that the city's recent gun violence has been connected to gang activity.

In a press conference in August, he said the Raptors incident and the August shootings "by and large have street gang connotations to them," pointing to the gang membership of the victims and those arrested. There is a thriving gang culture in Toronto centered on the illegal drug trade, largely in the city's poorer outer suburbs.

EDITORIAL: Politicians silent on street check ban increasing gun crime

The fact gang and gun violence in Toronto has skyrocketed since police were banned from doing street cheeks makes them uncomfortable, lest they be accused of racism by anti-police activists if they acknowledge it.

And so at City Hall and Queen’s Park they ignore reality, saying they’re hiring more police officers, implementing new shift schedules to more effectively deploy the force and investing more money in policing and programs to address the root causes of violence.

Despite that, since street checks were banned in 2014, the number of shootings compared to 2019 is up by 178%, victims by 218% and shooting homicides by 63%.

------

Last week, recently retired police officer Sue Fisher, on the force for almost 32 years, told the Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy that the end of street checks allowed the “bad guys to take over … there’s no longer that fear (among the criminal element.)”

Today, Fisher said, officers are often running from shooting to shooting after the fact, as opposed to doing proactive policing, like street checks, to gather intelligence to prevent shootings before they occur.

United States...

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 18.6 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.



The anti-gun hypothesis and argument.....

More Guns = More Gun crime regardless of any other factors.

Actual Result:

In the U.S....as more Americans own and carry guns over the last 26 years, gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%

The result: Exact opposite of theory of anti-gunners....

In Science when you have a theory, when that theory is tested....and the exact opposite result happens...that means your theory is wrong. That is science....not left wing wishful thinking.



Whatever the crime rate does......as more Americans owned more guns the crime rate did not go up....so again...



Britain...
More Guns = More Gun Crime

Britain had access to guns before they banned them.....they had low gun crime, low gun murder.

They banned guns, the gun murder rate spiked for 10 years then returned to the same level...

Your Theory again....

More guns = More Gun Crime

Guns Banned creates no change? That means banning guns for law abiding gun owners had no effect on gun crime.

When your theory states one thing, and you implement your theory, and nothing changes....in science, that means your theory is wrong...
-------


Maine tops ‘safest states’ rankings four years after removing major gun restriction

When Maine passed a “Constitutional Carry” law allowing Maine residents to carry a concealed firearm without any special permit in 2015, opponents of the law forecast a dangerous future for the state. They said the new law would hurt public safety and put Maine kids at risk.



One state representative who opposed the bill went so far as to say it would give Mainers a reason to be afraid every time they went out in public or to work.

Another state representative suggested the law would lead to violent criminals with recent arrests and convictions legally carrying handguns.


-----

Now four years later, Maine has been named the safest state in the nation according to US News and World Report’s public safety rankings, which measures the fifty states based on crime data.



Ranking as the top safest state for violent crime and fourth for property crime, Maine edges out another New England state, Vermont, for the top spot. Of note, Vermont also is a “Constitutional Carry” state. New Hampshire ranks third in the national rankings, giving New England all three of the top spots in the nation.

In 2018, Maine was edged out by Vermont in the same “safest states” ranking, but declared the best state overall in the broader “Crime and Corrections” category.

In 2017, using a different methodology, Maine was ranked second among the fifty states in the “Crime and Corrections” category and also second in the categories used to rank the “safest states.”

The U.S. News and World Report “Best States” rankings are built in partnership with McKinsey & Company, a firm that works closely with state leaders around the nation.

Maine has also ranked at the top of other state rankings. WalletHub.com recently ranked Maine second in “Personal and Residential Safety” among the fifty states, and third overall.
=============

Bolsonaro's Brazil, More Legal Guns, Homicide Rates Down Precipitously

In December, 2018, in an article published by the Wall Street Journal, this pronouncement was made. From the wsj.com:

Now, Brazil is set to embark on an experiment that will determine what happens when you loosen gun restrictions in a country battling an overpowering wave of gun crime.

Homicides in Brazil were at historic highs in 2017. They dropped a bit in 2018, as candidate Bolsonaro ran on reform of the gun laws to allow self defense, and reform of the law to get tough on crime. The homicide numbers dropped from 59,000 in 2017, to 51,000 in 2018. President Bolsonaro was elected in October of 2018.

After taking office on 1 January, 2019, President Bolsonaro issued his first decree reforming some of Brazil's extreme gun laws on 15 January, 2019. The drop in Brazil's homicide rate accelerated.
-------

Early in the Bolsonaro presidency, a Brazilian lawyer prediceted the homicide rate would drop. From ammoland.com:

César Mello, asked that I include information that early reports are showing a 25% drop in Brazil's homicide rate, in the first quarter of 2019. If this trend continues, 16,000 lives will have been saved in the first year of President Bolsonaro's time in office.

The rate reduction was not quite that high. Only 10,000 lives were saved. From wtop.com:

Brazil had 41,635 killings in 2019, down 19% from the prior year and the least number of homicides since 2007, when the so-called Violence Monitor index was launched. It is a partnership between the non-profit Brazilian Forum of Public Security, the University of Sao Paulo’s Center for the Study of Violence, and news website G1, which published the data Friday.

When translated to homicide rates, the rate dropped 17% in 2018, then 23% more in 2019. The population of Brazil in 2019 was 210 million. The rate of homicides per 100,000 was 19.83. That is less than 2/3 of the homicide rate in 2017, which was 30.8.

 

[2aguy]

It also gives a frail 25 year old girl equal protection to a 240 lbs muscle bound male, and the same thing applies for our elderly population. Cops are only good after a crime is committed. By then it's too late in many instances.

Again, your wank fantasies aside, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

I need a gun to protect myself--not my stuff. Any one of these so-called impoverished kids can join the military.

Uh, do you know how hard it is to get into the military in peacetime? The military rejects 80% of the people who apply.

80% of Military Recruitments Turned Down

The U.S. military has been turning down applicants in droves, and it's not just because of the drawdown.

www.military.com

How is it Chicago is such a great place that there were no jobs before Covid, and plenty of jobs here?

Wait, buddy, you said that you COULDN'T POSSIBLY FIND A JOB at a company that offered health insurance, which is why you stayed at the company you were at. So clearly, the job market wasn't that great over there.

You keep fucking lying......that 43 number is fake, it is wrong, and you keep using it...even after you have been shown the actual guy who did the research changed the number..........this is why no one trusts anti-gun extremists like you...when the facts, truth and reality show you are wrong on every gun issue, you lie.......

 

[2aguy]

Remember folks...this jack-ass is literally considered an “expert” in every sense of the word.
View attachment 316222
He actually advocated for the least restrictive measures to “safeguard”. Thank goodness that day in and day out, President Trump illustrates real leadership by making the common sense decisions while ignoring the left-wing lunatics looking to burn the U.S. to the ground.

The Experts who caused the Global economy to collapse? Were using Fortran to get their numbers....

Tell us again how we should trust the "experts...."

Never Trust the “Experts”

Everyone now knows that Neil Ferguson of England’s Imperial College is one of the villains of the coronavirus disaster of 2020. He produced an epidemiological model that was absurdly off the …

www.powerlineblog.com

But that’s not the worst of it. In the Telegraph, two software executives write that Ferguson’s model was, on its face, incompetent and would not have been accepted by anyone well-versed in computer technology. (“Neil Ferguson’s Imperial model could be the most devastating software mistake of all time.”) The article is beyond a paywall, so I will excerpt liberally:

Since publication of Imperial’s microsimulation model, those of us with a professional and personal interest in software development have studied the code on which policymakers based their fateful decision to mothball our multi-trillion pound economy and plunge millions of people into poverty and hardship. And we were profoundly disturbed at what we discovered. The model appears to be totally unreliable and you wouldn’t stake your life on it.
***
Imperial’s model appears to be based on a programming language called Fortran, which was old news 20 years ago and, guess what, was the code used for Mariner 1. This outdated language contains inherent problems with its grammar and the way it assigns values, which can give way to multiple design flaws and numerical inaccuracies. One file alone in the Imperial model contained 15,000 lines of code.

Try unravelling that tangled, buggy mess, which looks more like a bowl of angel hair pasta than a finely tuned piece of programming. Industry best practice would have 500 separate files instead. In our commercial reality, we would fire anyone for developing code like this and any business that relied on it to produce software for sale would likely go bust.
The approach ignores widely accepted computer science principles known as “separation of concerns”, which date back to the early 70s and are essential to the design and architecture of successful software systems. The principles guard against what developers call CACE: Changing Anything Changes Everything.
Without this separation, it is impossible to carry out rigorous testing of individual parts to ensure full working order of the whole. Testing allows for guarantees. It is what you do on a conveyer belt in a car factory. Each and every component is tested for integrity in order to pass strict quality controls.
Only then is the car deemed safe to go on the road. As a result, Imperial’s model is vulnerable to producing wildly different and conflicting outputs based on the same initial set of parameters. Run it on different computers and you would likely get different results. In other words, it is non-deterministic.
As such, it is fundamentally unreliable. It screams the question as to why our Government did not get a second opinion before swallowing Imperial’s prescription.

In the U.K., as here in America, the responsible government officials believed they had no choice but to follow the advice of officially-anointed “experts.” These alleged experts were bureaucrats and academics, not practicing physicians. The result has been a disaster, blighting the lives of hundreds of millions–perhaps billions–across the globe. The number of deaths resulting from the current, unnecessary economic collapse will never be accurately tabulated, but it will surely–unlike the toll from the virus itself–mount into the millions. The United Nations predicts that the death toll among children in underdeveloped countries alone will be hundreds of thousands.

 

[JoeB131]

And as an American, that's my choice to make whether to have a gun or not. Not yours. If you don't want a gun, don't get a gun, but don't tell me what I have to do.

Okay. And when the majority of us get sick and tired of your shit and put gun laws into place, then what?

We don't trust you with guns, that's the problem. Probably the crazy AVI where you are wanking off at the thought of shooting people, eventually you are going to make the news as the next Black Lives Matters Poster Boy.

You keep fucking lying......that 43 number is fake, it is wrong, and you keep using it...even after you have been shown the actual guy who did the research changed the number..........this is why no one trusts anti-gun extremists like you...when the facts, truth and reality show you are wrong on every gun issue, you lie.......

Sorry, Dick Tiny, Kellerman was right, he never took back his study. Gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

 

[2aguy]

And as an American, that's my choice to make whether to have a gun or not. Not yours. If you don't want a gun, don't get a gun, but don't tell me what I have to do.

Okay. And when the majority of us get sick and tired of your shit and put gun laws into place, then what?

We don't trust you with guns, that's the problem. Probably the crazy AVI where you are wanking off at the thought of shooting people, eventually you are going to make the news as the next Black Lives Matters Poster Boy.

You keep fucking lying......that 43 number is fake, it is wrong, and you keep using it...even after you have been shown the actual guy who did the research changed the number..........this is why no one trusts anti-gun extremists like you...when the facts, truth and reality show you are wrong on every gun issue, you lie.......

Sorry, Dick Tiny, Kellerman was right, he never took back his study. Gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

You have been shown the study where kellerman recanted on that number......over and over again and you pretend like it doesn't exist...........

And now, again.....

First, the study he used to change the 43 number to 2.7....then the breakdown of how his research is shoddy crap.....

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;

------------


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

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-conten...ack-of-Public-Health-Research-on-Firearms.pdf

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.



The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay ("Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

This is what the anti-gun lobbies call "scientific" proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
-------

So by counting accidents and suicides, the 43-to-1 factoid ends up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now, how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellermann and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellermann and Reay did not count in the self-defense total of any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet 40% of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the 43-to-1 figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. The figure is also based on a drastic undercount of the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police — and of home handgun ownership — are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

 

[JoeB131]

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean there aren't any jobs. Like I said, we used to have tons of them here. What is poverty? Poverty is the situation of having little or no money. The solution to poverty is to get money. The key to getting money is getting a job, not having a family until you are financially stable, and don't get involved in drugs or crime. Anybody can do that, any color, any shape or size with the exception of those mentally or physically incapable from doing so.

Check your privilege, buddy. YOu had all those advantages, and YOU ARE STILL ON WELFARE RIGHT NOW.

When I got out of school, I took a part-time job at a car wash for minimum wage. When I got out of the car wash, I got a full-time job in factory for minimum wage.

Wow, are you being dishonest. Back when you got out of high school, in the late 1970's, the minimum wage was still worth something.

If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be 10.24 an hour, not 7.25.

It was great, the problem for me was all my restrictions. If not for that, I would have had a job at a major carrier with all kinds of benefits.

Yes, you could have been a contender.. Come on, given how you are always "woa is me" about why your life sucks... you'd still have found an excuse

 

[JoeB131]

You have been shown the study where kellerman recanted on that number......over and over again and you pretend like it doesn't exist...........

Yup, gun nut sources don't exist... as far as I'm concerned.

The gun industry has sold you a lie, that something dangerous in your house helps you...

This isn't a gun control thread, take your NRA SPOOGE somewhere else.

 

[2aguy]

You have been shown the study where kellerman recanted on that number......over and over again and you pretend like it doesn't exist...........

Yup, gun nut sources don't exist... as far as I'm concerned.

The gun industry has sold you a lie, that something dangerous in your house helps you...

This isn't a gun control thread, take your NRA SPOOGE somewhere else.

Nothing I posted is from the NRA you moron........the facts, truth and reality do not support anything you believe or say...so you just lie.....

 

[JoeB131]

Nothing I posted is from the NRA you moron........the facts, truth and reality do not support anything you believe or say...so you just lie.....

Not a gun thread, not interesting your NRA Spooge.

 

[2aguy]

Nothing I posted is from the NRA you moron........the facts, truth and reality do not support anything you believe or say...so you just lie.....

Not a gun thread, not interesting your NRA Spooge.

Moron.....I came in at the end of your anti-gun screeching and simply put truth to your lies....you moron........and since you have been shown to be lying, again, you now try to scurry away....

You lied about the 43:1 number.....and were exposed as a liar....

You then throw out "NRA" and were exposed as a liar.....

You have nothing but lies and emotional black mail to push your anti-gun fantasies...

 

[JoeB131]

Moron.....I came in at the end of your anti-gun screeching

Again, not a gun thread, no one is interested in your NRA spooge.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. The truth the Gun Industry doesn't want you to know.

 

[2aguy]

Moron.....I came in at the end of your anti-gun screeching

Again, not a gun thread, no one is interested in your NRA spooge.

A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. The truth the Gun Industry doesn't want you to know.

I just posted the study kellerman did to change his number......anyone can read it.......I posted the reasons why both the old research and his corrective research are wrong....anyone can read that too.....none of it is from the NRA, and again, I simply posted in reply to your anti-gun posts in this thread....

You lied about the research, you lied about my response to your posts.....

You really need help.

 

[JoeB131]

I just posted the study kellerman did to change his number.....

Naw, you've posted the same bullshit you've been misrepresenting for years.

Kellerman has stood by his study.

But there's a simple way to solve this. Do the study again. Count up every fucking gun death in the country, all 33,000 of them in a given year.

How many suicides
How many domestic homicides
how many stranger homicides
How many self-defense homicides

We have 33,000 gun deaths a year. 19,000 suicides and 14,000 homicides. Of those, only 200 are ruled justified self-defense by civilians and 900 justified self-defense by law enforcement.

So even if you are BEING REALLY GENEROUS and counting all the cop shooting as legit, that's only 1100 legit shootings to 32,000 non-legit ones.

 

[2aguy]

I just posted the study kellerman did to change his number.....

Naw, you've posted the same bullshit you've been misrepresenting for years.

Kellerman has stood by his study.

But there's a simple way to solve this. Do the study again. Count up every fucking gun death in the country, all 33,000 of them in a given year.

How many suicides
How many domestic homicides
how many stranger homicides
How many self-defense homicides

We have 33,000 gun deaths a year. 19,000 suicides and 14,000 homicides. Of those, only 200 are ruled justified self-defense by civilians and 900 justified self-defense by law enforcement.

So even if you are BEING REALLY GENEROUS and counting all the cop shooting as legit, that's only 1100 legit shootings to 32,000 non-legit ones.

I posted the study kellerman did to change his number....it's right there....

You are the one continuing the gun issues in this thread, not me......

Also,

Suicides do not count......as you have been shown over and over again...

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.

Gun murder in the United States is essentially criminals murdering other criminals....

And as more Americans own and carry guns, our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....showing that normal people owning and carrying guns isn't the problem in this country.


The actual problem in this country is the democrat party. There is a direct link between the democrat party, releasing violent, known, gun criminals over and overa again, and our gun crime and gun murder numbers.......stop them, and we reduce our gun crime numbers by 95%....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Check your privilege, buddy. YOu had all those advantages, and YOU ARE STILL ON WELFARE RIGHT NOW.

Nope, I'm on disability, approved by a consensus of GOVERNMENT doctors. You hypocrites are all for big government up to the point somebody else has to use it.

Wow, are you being dishonest. Back when you got out of high school, in the late 1970's, the minimum wage was still worth something.

If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be 10.24 an hour, not 7.25.

You still couldn't support yourself on minimum wage back then unless you were roommates with several other people. In 1978, minimum wage was $2.65 an hour.

Yes, you could have been a contender.. Come on, given how you are always "woa is me" about why your life sucks... you'd still have found an excuse

I never said my life sucked. That's the liberal voice in your head. Me a contender for what? It's government that gave me all those restrictions. Like I said, if not for that, I would have been at a much better company 20 years ago. My driving and safety record was unsurpassed by most.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay. And when the majority of us get sick and tired of your shit and put gun laws into place, then what?

We don't trust you with guns, that's the problem. Probably the crazy AVI where you are wanking off at the thought of shooting people, eventually you are going to make the news as the next Black Lives Matters Poster Boy.

It doesn't matter what you think or say, it matters what the Constitution says; you know, that document you on the left hate so much?

Ginsburg is wearing down more and more with each passing year. I seriously doubt she'll be able to make it another near five years. I'm also sure Trump is so pissed off at that impeachment farce he's going to nominate the most 2nd Amendment justice he can find and the most constitutionalist he can find. That will guarantee my ownership and ability to carry my firearm for the remainder of my life.