# But....armed Americans won't be able to use their guns effectively to stop attackers, you know, except for this guy, and so many others...



## 2aguy (Sep 11, 2022)

This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....

As Hunt and other partiers had a bite to eat in the kitchen, the suspect pulled out a gun and began firing on the crowd, sending everyone fleeing, Mendez recounted.

*Mendez was shot in the head in front of his wife, who rushed to his side and believed he was dead due to the amount of blood covering his face. She then grabbed their two daughters and put them into a room deeper in the house, barricading them and other children inside. *

*"She barricaded the door with the dresser. There were three other children in there, not including my two daughters. A total of five kids. She … throws them in the closet, throws clothes over them. Tells them, ‘Be quiet. Do not make a peep if you hear loud noises in this room,’" Mendez said of his wife's actions. 

As Hunt continued his alleged rampage, two other women began fighting back against the suspect and screamed for Mendez, knowing he had a concealed carry weapon, Mendez said. 

"By the glory of God or the adrenaline and just everything, just the will to live and the will to protect my family, I was able to hear those pleas, those yells for help. I heard my name. And I was able to get up," he said. 

He was able to pull out his firearm and shoot the suspect four times in the chest. *

*"Detectives have determined the individual who shot Jason, and others who fought against Jason, were acting in self-defense and defense of other innocent parties," Sgt. Tommy Hale said in a press release days after the incident, KTAR reported at the time. *









						Arizona man shot in the head at family party credits his concealed carry for saving lives: ‘would have died’
					

Arizona man Raul Mendez is speaking out after he thwarted a shooter at a Fourth of July party with his concealed carry despite being shot in the head and losing his left eye.




					www.foxnews.com
				




He has since purchased two additional handguns for his family to train with, saying they are "more ready to confront [evil] with equal force now than ever."






Mendez family appears in NRA video on the importance of legal gun ownership and protecting yourself.  (NRA )
NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre highlighted in comments to Fox News Digital that the Mendez family’s story "must be told because they are just one example of why the NRA fights hard to improve self-defense laws all across our country."


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Sep 11, 2022)

Bravo to that man! 
It's exactly the type of incident the left doesn't want highlighted or known because it shatters a key gun control lie that good guys with guns don't stop bad guys.
The lefty males buy that argument because the idea of defending themselves from a pre-teen girl with a stick sends them into cold sweats in a fetal position & don't believe can't fathom that not everyone else is a coward as well


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Sep 11, 2022)

Thank God for the second . Remember to vote Democrats out of office , if they get their way this whole family would most likely be dead, and the murderer our on bail.


----------



## Manonthestreet (Sep 11, 2022)

One of the last places you would think of needing it


----------



## deannalw (Sep 11, 2022)

Manonthestreet said:


> One of the last places you would think of needing it




That's why James always carries- he says the last place you'd think to need it is probably the place you will.


----------



## night_son (Sep 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....
> 
> As Hunt and other partiers had a bite to eat in the kitchen, the suspect pulled out a gun and began firing on the crowd, sending everyone fleeing, Mendez recounted.
> 
> ...



Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2022)

night_son said:


> Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.



Actually, it will become a
Cash transaction…


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....



Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.


The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".


Sure, you COULD, possibly, in some rare scenario become a hero.  But odds are better that you won't.


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...


Lol liar. The op proves it. Lol, you must like looking stupid.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...




Wrong, that is a lie.......the people getting shot in their homes are living with criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts or violent abusers...they are not normal people.......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".


It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.



Sorry but it isn't a lie.  









						Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk
					

A study of individual instances of suicide and gun ownership shows a certain connection between the two




					www.cbsnews.com
				












						People in homes with handguns more likely to be shot dead, major study finds
					

Researchers find ‘zero evidence of any kind of protective effects’, with women at particular risk




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Research Finds That Having a Gun in Your Home Can Make Your Household Less Safe
					

A new study finds that residents of states with higher levels of gun ownership are more likely to be shot to death by a family member or intimate partner.




					psmag.com
				




You are free to believe otherwise, but you have no actual data to support your contention.  And while you clearly don't like the data I have available, it is real so you have to figure out a way to debate against the experts.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong, that is a lie.......the people getting shot in their homes are living with criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts or violent abusers...they are not normal people.......



As you like.  Of course you can't prove your position but I can mine.

And I did so in Post #12.


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Sorry but it isn't a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're a filthy liar.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

Whodatsaywhodat. said:


> Thank God for the second . Remember to vote Democrats out of office , if they get their way this whole family would most likely be dead, and the murderer our on bail.



Would it be possible to discuss this topic in a way in which you don't end up characterizing more than half of the US population as being "pro-murder"?  And if you wish to pursue the "pro-murder" crowd, it is probably best to look at where the "murder-making machines" are concentrated.  That would be your side of the debate.

The people holding all the guns which are used to kill little kids and theater goers are in NO POSITION to look at the people who want those guns to be gone and say THEY are the cause for the murder.


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Would it be possible to discuss this topic in a way in which you don't end up characterizing more than half of the US population as being "pro-murder"?  And if you wish to pursue the "pro-murder" crowd, it is probably best to look at where the "murder-making machines" are concentrated.  That would be your side of the debate.
> 
> The people holding all the guns which are used to kill little kids and theater goers are in NO POSITION to look at the people who want those guns to be gone and say THEY are the cause for the murder.


Break in my house liar.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

miketx said:


> You're a filthy liar.



Filthy, perhaps.  Liar?  Well, I did provide evidence for my position.

Are you capable of having a calm conversation without accusing me of stuff?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 12, 2022)

miketx said:


> Break in my house liar.



What is a "house liar"?  And how did yours break?


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> As you like.  Of course you can't prove your position but I can mine.
> 
> And I did so in Post #12.


YOu didn't prove shit other than you're a liar.


----------



## BothWings (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...


What you dont get is that most of us dont want to be heroes. We just don't want to be caught like a sitting duck by one of these people. I carry everyday but there is no way I want to be put in the position to be a "hero"


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> What is a "house liar"?  And how did yours break?


you're the house liar.


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Filthy, perhaps.  Liar?  Well, I did provide evidence for my position.
> 
> Are you capable of having a calm conversation without accusing me of stuff?


You lying scum don't accept proof.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Sorry but it isn't a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Seems to".  "May".
Sorry - no proof here.


Paracetamol63 said:


> People in homes with handguns more likely to be shot dead, major study finds
> 
> 
> Researchers find ‘zero evidence of any kind of protective effects’, with women at particular risk
> ...


"May".   "Suggests"
"It found that the absolute risk of living with a handgun owner was small, Studdert said, and that “the rates [of homicide] are low”
Sorry - no proof here.


Paracetamol63 said:


> Research Finds That Having a Gun in Your Home Can Make Your Household Less Safe
> 
> 
> A new study finds that residents of states with higher levels of gun ownership are more likely to be shot to death by a family member or intimate partner.
> ...


"Can".  "Suggests"  
Sorry - no proof here.


Paracetamol63 said:


> You are free to believe otherwise, but you have no actual data to support your contention.


On the contrary -- I need only discredit your sources as they relate to your claim.
Done.
And, as you presented the sources, one can only conclude you knew these sourced so not prove your claim.
Thus,your lie.

See how easy that was?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> As you like.  Of course you can't prove your position but I can mine.
> And I did so in Post #12.


This is a lie, as I proved in post # 23.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The people holding all the guns which are used to kill little kids and theater goers....


Are any of those people here?
Who are they and how do you know?


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Would it be possible to discuss this topic in a way in which you don't end up characterizing more than half of the US population as being "pro-murder"?  And if you wish to pursue the "pro-murder" crowd, it is probably best to look at where the "murder-making machines" are concentrated.  That would be your side of the debate.
> 
> The people holding all the guns which are used to kill little kids and theater goers are in NO POSITION to look at the people who want those guns to be gone and say THEY are the cause for the murder.


Why do you democrats insist on letting these criminals out on bail . Yet people taking selfies at the Capitol are held with no bail ? Almost seems like democrats want more shootings so they can go after guns. Kinda like they make up things about Trump so they can prevent him from running for POTUS.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Sorry but it isn't a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those crap studies have already been taken apart in other threads…..t


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Seems to".  "May".
> Sorry - no proof here.
> 
> "May".   "Suggests"
> ...



And when you dig into the studies you will find they leave out the type of people they used as their samples…….And if I remember correctly, from the other thread on this…..the areas of the country where they took their samples had massively high homicide rates……something they just ignore when they imply these are just normal homes….I’d look it up to verify but I’m watching Resident Alien and don’t want to bother with this crap tonight


----------



## westwall (Sep 12, 2022)

night_son said:


> Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.





Nahh, cash is king baby.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Seems to".  "May".
> Sorry - no proof here.
> 
> "May".   "Suggests"
> ...



Just a quick look….yep…..this article didn’t even link to the actual study…..big red flag there….and even then they point this out

*The authors of the study acknowledged it had several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims had been killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldn’t account for illegal guns and looked only at handguns, not rifles or other firearms. The dataset also was limited to registered voters in California who were 21 and older. It’s not clear that the findings are generalizable to the whole state, let alone to the rest of the country.*


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....
> 
> As Hunt and other partiers had a bite to eat in the kitchen, the suspect pulled out a gun and began firing on the crowd, sending everyone fleeing, Mendez recounted.
> 
> ...



It's great that you are spending so much time finding all the occasional cases where a gun-obsessed person like yourself was able to actually use the gun to a good end.

Keep up the good work.


Unfortunately mathematics is a bit more difficult.  In order to shift the average of a very large population (gun nuts) such that owning a gun winds up being LESS statistically likely to harm the family of the gun nut.

I know you don't like numbers or statistics unless they confirm you bias and you've of course seen all the studies now that show that guns in the home are far more likely to be used against the people in that home than not.

I really wish you understood math and statistics and it would be GREAT if you understood the phrases "Anecdotal Data" and "CONFIRMATION BIAS"


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 13, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nahh, cash is king baby.



And nothing says "Good intentioned, law-abiding gun owner" than sneakin' around hiding your gun purchases because someone might see you.

Who else does that?  Oh I know...they usually find their way onto the news!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (Sep 13, 2022)

BothWings said:


> What you dont get is that most of us dont want to be heroes. We just don't want to be caught like a sitting duck by one of these people. I carry everyday but there is no way I want to be put in the position to be a "hero"



Yeah, but think about it:  you probably AREN'T ever going to be a "hero" of any sort.  Studies show that guns in the household are far more likely to be used to harm the inhabitants of that household than they are to protect against vicious intruders.

Don't get me wrong.  I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND wanting a gun for "self-defense", especially if you live in a really horrible place.  I feel for you.  I wish where you lived wasn't a hell-hole of non-stop violence.  But also most of us don't live in those places.  

I think the key is to balance out our relative "fantasies" of how effective we would be in a shoot-out with the likelihood that our loved ones may be more likely to die from the guns we have in our homes than they are from the intruder.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Those crap studies have already been taken apart in other threads…..t



Let's be quite clear:  YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher.  It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.

What are your bona fides to take on actual research?  I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled.  So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

Whodatsaywhodat. said:


> Why do you democrats insist on letting these criminals out on bail .



Bail is not a democrat or republican thing.  It's part of our judicial system.  Sorry if you dislike the US Judicial System.



Whodatsaywhodat. said:


> Almost seems like democrats want more shootings so they can go after guns.



That's a very strange position to take.  It shows a lot of projection.  Perhaps if the shoe were on the other foot?  

But one side is defending the machines used to create the death and the other sides says WE NEED LESS OF THEM....and somehow you have arrived at a position that says the side that ISN'T defending the death-machines are the ones who want more death.



Whodatsaywhodat. said:


> Kinda like they make up things about Trump so they can prevent him from running for POTUS.



Surely you aren't serious.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Unfortunately mathematics is a bit more difficult.  In order to shift the average of a very large population (gun nuts) such that owning a gun winds up being LESS statistically likely to harm the family of the gun nut.


Unsurprisingly, you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And nothing says "Good intentioned, law-abiding gun owner" than sneakin' around hiding your gun purchases because someone might see you.


Nothing says "fascism " like a collaberation between the state and industry to push the state's agenda.
No wonder you approve.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, but think about it:  you probably AREN'T ever going to be a "hero" of any sort.  Studies show that guns in the household are far more likely to be used to harm the inhabitants of that household than they are to protect against vicious intruders.


Unsurprisinly, you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....
> 
> As Hunt and other partiers had a bite to eat in the kitchen, the suspect pulled out a gun and began firing on the crowd, sending everyone fleeing, Mendez recounted.
> 
> ...


Just bought 400 rounds of wad cutters .45 LC and 55 grain Remmington .223 of 1000 rounds.  With a Marxist on this board saying that the government should ban ammunition instead of the weapons that use the ammo, it is never enough to bring your stash for those people like who showed up at the Mendez family house.

I want to leave a very big hole into the Marxist who thinks they can come in my house without my invitation.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

deannalw said:


> That's why James always carries- he says the last place you'd think to need it is probably the place you will.


If you dont carry all the time, you will eventually be a victim of a crime, that might even kill you.  If you do keep yourself protected then you have a fighting chance.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

night_son said:


> Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.


Not with this card...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...


Only for moronic Marxists who dont know how to keep their weapons safe and secure.  

LA mayoral candidate Rep. Karen Bass has guns stolen …​
Two *guns* were stolen from the California home of *Congresswoman* and Los Angeles mayoral candidate Karen Bass, the rep said on Saturday. Rep. Bass, 68, released a statement that said she came home ...










			https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/la-mayoral-candidate...
		

https://www.bing.com/search?q=anti+...NNTH1&refig=f5c44c998b3d4982a44ba410e210a322#


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

BothWings said:


> What you dont get is that most of us dont want to be heroes. We just don't want to be caught like a sitting duck by one of these people. I carry everyday but there is no way I want to be put in the position to be a "hero"


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Only for moronic Marxists who dont know how to keep their weapons safe and secure.



The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect.  The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect.  The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.


Gun enthusiasts are all right to me, because i dont see them out there murdering people, like i do the Marxist teenagers who are taught that America is evil, so those Marxist go out and kill innocent people, who just want to live their lives in peace.  Now with the lawlessness of the Joe Biden America DOJ, more of those Marxists are showing up not only in the inner cities but have moved on into the burbs.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> The people who understand that guns are a great tool and NOT an object of obsessive love treat them with respect.  The gun-enthusiasts most commonly talking on forums like this about the 2A usually come across as the kind of people we were warned about when I was kid getting my hunting license and out hunting with my dad.


^^^
Mindless nonsense.


----------



## westwall (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And nothing says "Good intentioned, law-abiding gun owner" than sneakin' around hiding your gun purchases because someone might see you.
> 
> Who else does that?  Oh I know...they usually find their way onto the news!





Nothing says fascist more than a government monitoring everything you buy.

Now, go lick another boot.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^
> Mindless nonsense.



Yup.  Just like my pappy told me.  There are idiots who come out into our timber with guns.  They come down from the "city" and they are too stupid to know what they are doing.  Best to avoid them at all costs lest you get yourself shot.

You seem to have that vibe.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nothing says fascist more than a government monitoring everything you buy.



Or that denies you access to healthcare based on your personal bodily choices.  But that is what you voted to do.



westwall said:


> Now, go lick another boot.



I'd say you already licked the Right one raw.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yup.  Just like my pappy told me.  There are idiots who come out into our timber with guns.  They come down from the "city" and they are too stupid to know what they are doing.  Best to avoid them at all costs lest you get yourself shot.
> You seem to have that vibe.


You say, without any demonstrably rational reason whatsoever.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Or that denies you access to healthcare based on your personal bodily choices.


Examples?


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It's great that you are spending so much time finding all the occasional cases where a gun-obsessed person like yourself was able to actually use the gun to a good end.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> ...




No....I don't like agenda driven research.......like all of the anti-gun research coming from you guys...

You guys take a community filled with criminals, drug users, alcoholics and domestic abusers, then say those are normal gun owners...while ignoring the owners of the millions of guns in stable, normal homes........

You are vile.....and, by the way....are you Brain357?  Did you change your name?  You post just like that idiot did...


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, but think about it:  you probably AREN'T ever going to be a "hero" of any sort.  Studies show that guns in the household are far more likely to be used to harm the inhabitants of that household than they are to protect against vicious intruders.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND wanting a gun for "self-defense", especially if you live in a really horrible place.  I feel for you.  I wish where you lived wasn't a hell-hole of non-stop violence.  But also most of us don't live in those places.
> 
> I think the key is to balance out our relative "fantasies" of how effective we would be in a shoot-out with the likelihood that our loved ones may be more likely to die from the guns we have in our homes than they are from the intruder.




Yeah...this is the kind of research you idiots do...

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


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Let's be quite clear:  YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher.  It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.
> 
> What are your bona fides to take on actual research?  I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled.  So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.




You don't have to be a researcher to see the criticisms even in the article.......


Paracetamol63 said:


> Let's be quite clear:  YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher.  It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.
> 
> What are your bona fides to take on actual research?  I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled.  So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.




Your first crap article....

First Red Flag....Hemenway having any connection to the research...he is a rabid, dishonest anti-gun researcher.....

*Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in an editorial on the survey that the evidence is “overwhelming” on the increased risk of successful suicide if there’s a gun in the home. Hemenway also points to the increased risk of violence against women in particular.









						Study: Guns in home increase suicide, homicide risk
					

A study of individual instances of suicide and gun ownership shows a certain connection between the two




					www.cbsnews.com
				




To take apart this bullshit....simply ask, how is it that Japan, China, and South Korea have far higher suicide rates than the U.S. even with their extreme gun control?*

*You can't get past that when it comes to the bullshit about guns and suicide...*


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You don't have to be a researcher to see the criticisms even in the article.......



Actually yes you do.  Otherwise you don't necessarily understand the technical detailed points.



2aguy said:


> *You can't get past that when it comes to the bullshit about guns and suicide...*



I will go with the actual experts as opposed to you.  Unfortuantely you are far too emotional for this topic.  You are too quick to denigrate studies you are unprepared to critique.  Your passion shows through too much.  You are  overly emotional about this topic.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Let's be quite clear:  YOU are not one to be able to take apart a study because you are not a professional researcher.  It is apparent you are just a gun enthusiast who is seeking to avoid the reality of guns in our society.
> 
> What are your bona fides to take on actual research?  I don't ask to be nasty or snotty, but frankly I've seen almost no one on this forum whatsoever that seems to understand how science is done, how statistics works, or how data is handled.  So I'm curious why YOU are to be an authority.




The next piece of crap study you cited....

The authors of the study acknowledged it had several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims had been killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldn’t account for illegal guns

*I found the actual study....funny, they didn't give a link to it in the article...I wonder why?


This is why it too, is crap......

Fifty-three percent of the homicides occurred away from the victim's home, 37.8% occurred at the victim's home, 1.3% involved victims residing in irregular dwellings (for example, homeless or institutionalized), and the location could not be determined for the remaining 7.5% (Figure 2).

---
Among homicides that occurred at home, the relationship of perpetrator to victim was unknown for 26.6%; among the rest, the victim was killed by a spouse or intimate partner in 36.9%, another family member in 25.9%, a friend or acquaintance in 20.9%, and a stranger in 16.2%.*




			ACP Journals
		


So....

What they don't talk about in this crap study?

How many of those people were criminals?  How many of the women were shacked up with known criminals?

How many were killed in their homes by criminals attacking them in their homes?

How many of these homes had drug users or drug addicts in the homes....?

How many of the homes had domestic abusers in them?

This is how you guys lie, and why we know your research is crap....


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Actually yes you do.  Otherwise you don't necessarily understand the technical detailed points.
> 
> 
> 
> I will go with the actual experts as opposed to you.  Unfortuantely you are far too emotional for this topic.  You are too quick to denigrate studies you are unprepared to critique.  Your passion shows through too much.  You are  overly emotional about this topic.




You are more than willing to accept biased, crap research if it pushes your agenda.......


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 13, 2022)

You know damn well the attack on the 2nd has nothing to do with public safety.

Or should I say at this point, if the '2A Guy" doesn't know it, then the 2A side really is totally lost.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 13, 2022)

Gun owners will adamantly deny it but.........

The Marxist Left is slowly but surely winning the push to diarm Americans.  Step by Step.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You are more than willing to accept biased, crap research if it pushes your agenda.......



No.  But unlike you I actually know how analyses and data processing works so I tend to understand what I'm reading a bit better.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Gun owners will adamantly deny it but.........
> 
> The Marxist Left is slowly but surely winning the push to diarm Americans.  Step by Step.



At some point you folks on the opposing side will have to come up with a better strategy than just screaming about your "Riiiights" as if people will look up from the bleeding dead corpse that was their child and say "Well, I guess this is the price of a strong Second Amendment!"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> This guy was shot in the head, losing an eye, and he still managed to draw and return fire on a mass shooter at a party....
> 
> As Hunt and other partiers had a bite to eat in the kitchen, the suspect pulled out a gun and began firing on the crowd, sending everyone fleeing, Mendez recounted.
> 
> ...


This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy and confirmation bias fallacy.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> No.  But unlike you I actually know how analyses and data processing works so I tend to understand what I'm reading a bit better.




No.....you want gun control, you push anti-gun propaganda disguised as research.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> At some point you folks on the opposing side will have to come up with a better strategy than just screaming about your "Riiiights" as if people will look up from the bleeding dead corpse that was their child and say "Well, I guess this is the price of a strong Second Amendment!"



I know of zero instances where a law abiding gun owner killed a child.
I also know of zero criminals who give a damn what laws you pass or who you took guns from (they will still have them)


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 13, 2022)

While the 2A side is busy bawling over the rights they lost yesterday......

The Marxist are already busy taking more gun "rights" away today.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> At some point you folks on the opposing side will have to come up with a better strategy than just screaming about your "Riiiights" ...


At some point, you folks on the opposing side with have to explain why people should accept the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the right to keep and bear arms.


Paracetamol63 said:


> as if people will look up from the bleeding dead corpse that was their child and say "Well, I guess this is the price of a strong Second Amendment!"


Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion - why are you?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> At some point, you folks on the opposing side with have to explain why people should accept the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the right to keep and bear arms.



If you are unable to understand this point then you will probably wind up losing in the long run.  



M14 Shooter said:


> Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion - why are you?



You do seem overly emotional about your guns.  That's never a safe way to be.  When you find yourself obsessing on something it might not be healthy.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> I know of zero instances where a law abiding gun owner killed a child.



I know of zero instances where a law-abiding ANYONE killed a child.

So your point isn't really all that meaningful.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> I also know of zero criminals who give a damn what laws you pass or who you took guns from (they will still have them)



Are you of the opinion that we should get rid of all laws?  Your reasoning leads to that position.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> If you are unable to understand this point ...


I _fully _understand it
You want to try to remove the "rights " argument from the discussion on gun control, because you know you cannot argue around it, as you try to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on it.
Well, you can't - the right is there, it is protected by the constitution, and you don't get to ignore it.

At some point, you with have to explain why people should accept the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the right to keep and bear arms -- and you know you cannot.


Paracetamol63 said:


> You do seem overly emotional about your guns.


Says he who knows the only way he can advance his agenda is to sell dead kids.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I know of zero instances where a law-abiding ANYONE killed a child.
> 
> So your point isn't really all that meaningful.
> 
> ...



Is the topic here ALL laws....or are we talking specifically about GUN related laws?
You seem confused.

Also, since you point out that "Law abiding" people don't kill other people.....
*
Why would you want or need to take guns from them ??*


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> While the 2A side is busy bawling over the rights they lost yesterday......



Doesn't sound like it.



BasicHumanUnit said:


> The Marxist are already busy taking more gun "rights" away today.




"Marxists".  I'm getting tired of this.  Can you guys come up with some other bugbear you can throw around?  Why not call us "Luddites" or "Sans Coullottes" or some other stupid unrelated term.



M14 Shooter said:


> I _fully _understand it



Doubtful.



M14 Shooter said:


> You want to try to remove the "rights "



...and here we have it:  you don't understand that point.



M14 Shooter said:


> Says he who knows the only way he can advance his agenda is to sell dead kids.



If you are unable to act like an adult I'm afraid I'll have to stop bothering with you.  Please attempt a BIT of civility.  

You are WAAY to overemotional about your guns.  You scare those  of us who have seen equally obsessed angry people do things that we all were saddened by.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Are you of the opinion that we should get rid of all laws?  Your reasoning leads to that position.


Nothing in his statement leads to this conclusion.
Disagree?
Take us through the steps.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....I don't like agenda driven research.......like all of the anti-gun research coming from you guys...
> 
> You guys take a community filled with criminals, drug users, alcoholics and domestic abusers, then say those are normal gun owners...while ignoring the owners of the millions of guns in stable, normal homes........
> 
> You are vile.....and, by the way....are you Brain357?  Did you change your name?  You post just like that idiot did...


Just a reminder what happened just 21 years ago, and was asked for tolerance.  Yeah, sure.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> If you are unable to act like an adult/...


Rational,  reasoned adults do not advance their agenda through fallacious appeals to emotion.
Why do you ?


Paracetamol63 said:


> You scare those  of us who have seen equally obsessed angry people do things that we all were saddened by.


Your irrational fears are not my problem and do nothing to negate points I made.

Tell us:   Why should we accept the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek to lay on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rational,  reasoned adults do not advance their agenda through fallacious appeals to emotion.
> Why do you ?



What "emotions" am I appealing to that you find unacceptable?



M14 Shooter said:


> Your irrational fears



To be fair, I'm not the one who is sitting here with a bunch of guns around me because I'm terrified of every other American.



M14 Shooter said:


> are not my problem and do nothing to negate points I made.



You do that for yourself.



M14 Shooter said:


> Tell us:   Why should we accept the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek to lay on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?



Because nothing is working right now.  Your solutions of "more guns" hasn't resulted in a better outcome.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> What "emotions" am I appealing to that you find unacceptable?


Please read more carefully.
_Rational,  reasoned adults do not advance their agenda through *fallacious appeals to emotion.*_





						Appeal to emotion - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





Paracetamol63 said:


> To be fair, I'm not the one who is sitting here with a bunch of guns around me because I'm terrified of every other American.


This does not make your fear any less irrational, any less irrelevamt, or any more my problem.


Paracetamol63 said:


> You do that for yourself.


You know you cannot demonstrate this to be true.


Paracetamol63 said:


> Because nothing is working right now.


OK then - please demonstrate that the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek will "work".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

westwall said:


> Keep yapping.  I am trying to figure out whose sock puppet you are.


He has -all- the MSDNC talking points down.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Please read more carefully.
> _Rational,  reasoned adults do not advance their agenda through *fallacious appeals to emotion.*_
> 
> 
> ...



I wish you weren't so _hyper emotional_ about all this.  It is kind of unsettling that someone who loves guns gets so bent at anyone who so much as looks at them.

You need to take a rest.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> He has -all- the MSDNC talking points down.



I'm probably Rachel Maddow.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> I wish you weren't so _hyper emotional_ about all this.


Nothing I have posted could, with any degree of intellectual honesty, be described as emotional, in any way.

Now, to get back to the topics you'd obviously rather avoid:
-Why are you swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion?
-Please demonstrate that the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you seek will "work".

Well?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nothing I have posted could, with any degree of intellectual honesty, be described as emotional, in any way.
> 
> Now, to get back to the topics you'd obviously rather avoid:
> -Why are you swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion?
> ...



Yeah, you are pretty emotional about all this.  I'll just leave you alone until you cool down (which doesn't appear to be ever).

Take it easy, dude.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, you are pretty emotional about all this.


Translation:
You know you cannot menaingfully respond to the points put to you.
Your concession, accepted.


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Bail is not a democrat or republican thing.  It's part of our judicial system.  Sorry if you dislike the US Judicial System.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry if you don't like our constitution . " machines used to create death "  . A. K. A. The Right to keep and bear arms , " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " .  Don't like it ? Move the hell out of here .


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Bail is not a democrat or republican thing.  It's part of our judicial system.  Sorry if you dislike the US Judicial System.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You ever hear of the " Plandemic". Surely   you can't be serious.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> But one side is defending the machines used to create the death...


Your emotions runeth over.
You need to take a break


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

Whodatsaywhodat. said:


> Sorry if you don't like our constitution . " machines used to create death "  . A. K. A. The Right to keep and bear arms , " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " .  Don't like it ? Move the hell out of here .



What if I told you: _the Constitution can be amended!_

Would that blow your little mind?

How about if I told you:  YOUR 2A RIGHTS ARE ALREADY INFRINGED.  There are already limitations.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> as if people will look up from the bleeding dead corpse that was their child...


Your passion shows through too much.  You are  overly emotional about this topic.
You need to take a break.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your passion shows through too much.  You are  overly emotional about this topic.
> You need to take a break.



Well now you are just parroting what I said.  This is kind of pathetic.

Your emotions are really getting the better of you over this.  Perhaps if you went out and popped off a few rounds you'd feel better?

If you want to, you can put my picture on the target.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> What if I told you: _the Constitution can be amended!_


When that happens, let us know.
Unitl then, it protects the right to keep and bear arms from your emotion-driven, unnecessary, and ineffective restrictions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Well now you are just parroting what I said.  This is kind of pathetic.


Truth hurts, eh?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> What if I told you: _the Constitution can be amended!_
> 
> Would that blow your little mind?
> 
> How about if I told you:  YOUR 2A RIGHTS ARE ALREADY INFRINGED.  There are already limitations.


Yeah, it can be amended, yet every time it goes for a vote, those who vote to amend it end up out of work.  Not only does it take 2/3rds majority in the house and senate to pass to the president, but then it must be ratified by the states, which a majority are red and plenty of blue are turning red also.  Why are you afraid of an inanimate object that doesnt harm anyone, but put a Marxist behind the wheel of a SUV, or a Muzzy in a Box truck, they can do more damage than some AR-15?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Mikeoxenormous said:


> Why are you afraid of an inanimate object that doesnt harm anyone...


His fear is irrational and thus, inexplicable.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> His fear is irrational and thus, inexplicable.



  It's funny to see someone pull out strategy from "the toddler playbook" by simply parroting what other people say.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> When that happens, let us know.



It has happened several times already!  I am surprised you don't know that.  Did you not have a history class in school?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It's funny to see someone pull out strategy from "the toddler playbook" by simply parroting what other people say.



Look at you, admitting your posts come directly from the toddler playbook.
Well done.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> It has happened several times already!


This is a lie, of course, as you are fully aware of the fact the 2nd has not been amended or repealed
Sad.
But expected.


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 13, 2022)

deannalw said:


> That's why James always carries- he says the last place you'd think to need it is probably the place you will.


On the terlit?


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is a lie, of course, as you are fully aware of the fact the 2nd has not been amended or repealed
> Sad.
> But expected.



Not what I said.  I was responding to my original point that the Constitution has been amended several times.

Read closer next time.  (Or relax a bit so you can focus more closely and read what people ACTUALLY say!   )


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Not what I said.


Another posted said:
*the Right to keep and bear arms , " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*
You said, specifically,
_*What if I told you: the Constitution can be amended!*_
I responded, specifically
_*When that happens, let us know.*_
You said, specifically:
_*It has happened several times already!*_

Thus, your statement is a lie.

Tell us again about how you argue from your toddler's playbook.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said, specifically,
> _*What if I told you: the Constitution can be amended!*_
> I responded, specifically
> _*When that happens, let us know.*_
> ...



Do you not realize the US constitution has been amended 27 times?  You should go read it.



M14 Shooter said:


> Thus, your statement is a lie.



No, the COnstitution has been amended many times.  My point stands.



M14 Shooter said:


> Tell us again about how you argue from your toddler's playbook.



What do you think the 27 Amendments are that are tacked onto the Constitution?

Do you really not know about them?  (Hint: Even the Second Amendment _is an amendment.)_


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Do you not realize the US constitution has been amended 27 times?  You should go read it.


Look at you - trying to move the goalposts.
What page is that in your toddler's playbook?
You clearly are so emotionally overwhelmed by this issue,, you are forced to lie to make a point.
You better sit this one out.


----------



## Paracetamol63 (Sep 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Look at you - trying to move the goalposts.



YOU QUOTED ME EXACTLY, M14.  How can I be moving the goal posts!

LOOK AT YOUR OWN POST AGAIN!  I clearly state that I am talking about the Constitution.

I hope your vision isn't failing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> YOU QUOTED ME EXACTLY, M14.  How can I be moving the goal posts!


Really... you must learn to govern your passions...  they will be your undoing.

You need to take a break. throw away your toddler's playbook, and let us know when you can calmly and honestly discuss an issue.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...



That old saw is based on warped analysis.  SUICIDES are the largest fraction of gun deaths in America by far.  They were "bound into" this phony factoid to arrive at that conclusion.  It's not like there are aren't 50 other more painful ways to commit suicide. 

And any analytical person would figure being TOLD that this factoid is whacked -- would also automatically realize that SUICIDES are MUCH more common in general than home attacks. The SAFETY record for handling firearms is actually pretty damn good. Citizens aren't far behind security/police for "unintended discharges ending in injury or death".


----------



## Blues Man (Sep 13, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> Yeah, but you wouldn't be able to, no matter how much you fantasize it.
> 
> 
> The odds are more likely that someone in your immediate family who shares the house with you and your guns are FAR more likely to be hurt with them than some "intruder" or "vicious attacker".
> ...


It called risk assessment.  People do it every day.  If you have a swimming pool you and your kids are far more likely to drown than a person who doesn't own a swimming pool but people who own swimming pools are comfortable with that risk.

If you are not comfortable with the risks involved with owning a gun don't own one.  It's that simple.

I don't think having guns in my home is a risk to anyone in my home because I know how to handle them safely.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

night_son said:


> Thanks to Visa, Mastercard and American Express there will in the future be fewer armed citizens capable of fighting back.



Cash is king...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Sep 24, 2022)

I've used my legally concealed firearm to defend myself and my loved ones twice. One of those instances resulted in someone losing his life.

I will never be unarmed.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six...


----------



## DukeU (Oct 28, 2022)

Paracetamol63 said:


> You are free to believe otherwise, but you have no actual data to support your contention. And while you clearly don't like the data I have available, it is real so you have to figure out a way to debate against the experts.



*Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives* | The Wentworth Report​

*Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict. Guns are used to defend against criminals up to 2.5 million times every year (though only fired in 8% of these cases), which is 80 times more than they are used to take lives. Up to 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year; only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person versus 11% for the police.*
*Concealed carry laws help reduce crime. Violent crime falls in a  state after it legalizes carrying of concealed firearms.*
*Criminals avoid armed citizens. Criminals are less likely to enter homes if they think the occupants might be armed, and mass-shootings nearly all seem to occur in “gun-free” zones.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Oct 29, 2022)

DukeU said:


> *Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives* | The Wentworth Report​
> 
> *Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict. Guns are used to defend against criminals up to 2.5 million times every year (though only fired in 8% of these cases), which is 80 times more than they are used to take lives. Up to 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year; only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person versus 11% for the police.*
> *Concealed carry laws help reduce crime. Violent crime falls in a  state after it legalizes carrying of concealed firearms.*
> *Criminals avoid armed citizens. Criminals are less likely to enter homes if they think the occupants might be armed, and mass-shootings nearly all seem to occur in “gun-free” zones.*


Marxist men dont want women to defend themselves, because then they cant just take what ever they want from those women, and thus leave them with a baby.  That is why Marxists want abortions for rape, because it is the Marxists who are doing the rape.  Then deny that they ever had done anything to the woman.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2022)

The results of leftist policies that enable criminals couldn't be clearer. 

We are largely at a point where we are responsible for our safety. 










						'We Can't Keep You Safe'- Law Enforcement Officials Tell Fox News
					

As crime spikes in Democrat run cities across America, law enforcement officials warn that they can’t keep us safe. National Police Association Spokesperson Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith, LAPD Detective Jamie McBride and former Chicago police officer Anthony Napolitano joined Fox & Friends on...




					www.thegatewaypundit.com
				




'We Can’t Keep You Safe’- Law Enforcement Officials Tell Fox News​

Meanwhile, crime in major cities continues to rise. According to police department data, Chicago has seen a 39% increase in crime, Philadelphia 24.3%, New York City 21.1%. and Los Angeles 8.7% year-over-year.

LAPD Detective Jamie McBride shared concern over his city as fewer officers means a decreased ability to serve the community.

“It’s not safe here,” McBride warned. “I’ve been telling people for over a year, do not come to Los Angeles. We cannot keep you safe.”


----------

