# Hmmm...Massachusetts gun control laws had no impact on gun crime rates.....who saw that coming?   Well, we did........



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

A study shows that all of the gun control laws, on top of all the other gun control laws, piled on top of the other gun control laws in Massachusetts......had no impact on their gun crime rates.....

You know, since criminals don't obey gun laws.....

Where I found the first story....









						Inconvenient studies get buried by the media
					

Studies that show gun control doesn't work don't make the press, but if it shows the opposite? That's a whole other story.




					bearingarms.com
				




Where they found the story.....









						Massachusetts gun-control legislation had no impact on violent crime rates
					

The new gun control measures did not have a "consistent effect" on reducing rates of murder or manslaughter, assault, robbery, and rape.




					www.studyfinds.org
				





*A team at American University analyzed the impact of one such measure in Massachusetts and found stricter background checks and licensing policies made little to no difference in curbing violent crimes.
-------*
How is Massachusetts cracking down on gun ownership?​Massachusetts passed new background check requirements for firearms sold at gun shows or through private sales. Lawmakers also created changes to firearm regulations by adopting new gun licensing procedures in 2014. The new law went into effect in January 2015.

No ‘consistent effect’ on crime rates​Using this approach, the research team was able to estimate, based on percentage of firearms licenses, that one to five percent of adult Massachusetts residents had a gunlicense.


* However, results also show the new gun control measures did not have a “consistent effect” on reducing four types of violent crimes — murder or manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery, and rape.*

*Notably, a one-percent increase in denied firearm licenses and denied firearm licenses following statutory disqualifications increased robberies by 7.3 and 8.9 percent, respectively.*

*But.......did these gun control laws prevent criminals from Mis-gendering their victims?*


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.




You mean except for the fact that the states where the guns originate, have lower gun murder rates than the democrat party cities where they end up...you mean except for that...

Showing that it isn't guns that are the problem...it is the democrat party attacking and handicapping the police, and then actually refusing to press charges against actual gun criminals, and releasing known, repeat gun offenders over and over again...

Not guns, criminal control....and the democrat party does not want to control criminals....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You mean except for the fact that the states where the guns originate, have lower gun murder rates than the democrat party cities where they end up...you mean except for that...



Yes, rural areas have less crime... because no one lives there.  

So why not let the Democratic cities ban guns if we want to?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, rural areas have less crime... because no one lives there.
> 
> So why not let the Democratic cities ban guns if we want to?



Wrong......cities in Red states not controlled by democrats don't have near the gun murder democrat party cities have...

1) the democrats attack and handicap the police

2) they refuse to prosecute, or release, violent gun offenders....

These are the reasons they have gun crime....

They do not have gun crime because a normal person owns and carries a gun....normal people with a gun do not use them for crime or murder...

That you morons can't understand this is why democrat party controlled cities are covered in blood.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jan 2, 2022)

In other news.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong......cities in Red states not controlled by democrats don't have near the gun murder democrat party cities have...
> 
> 1) the democrats attack and handicap the police
> 
> 2) they refuse to prosecute, or release, violent gun offenders....



Yeah, you see, now most people would realize that it was Trump crippling the economy that caused crime to rise, but you go on with your fantasies that Johnny Law's delicate feelings were hurt.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, you see, now most people would realize that it was Trump crippling the economy that caused crime to rise, but you go on with your fantasies that Johnny Law's delicate feelings were hurt.




Moron......the democrats and their pointless lockdowns crippled the economies in the states they control, as Red states are booming and blue states are dying......

But don't blame the Chinese...for some unknown fucking reason you love mass murdering socialists....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron......the democrats and their pointless lockdowns crippled the economies in the states they control, as Red states are booming and blue states are dying......
> 
> But don't blame the Chinese...for some unknown fucking reason you love mass murdering socialists....



Uh, guy, Covid was shit show across the country, and the lockdowns were necessary.  

I honestly think that Trump could have started World War III, and you'd pop out of the rubble screaming, "Hillary was a bitch!!!"


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, Covid was shit show across the country, and the lockdowns were necessary.
> 
> I honestly think that Trump could have started World War III, and you'd pop out of the rubble screaming, "Hillary was a bitch!!!"




And yet Red states are booming and thriving, and the blue, lockdown, killing senior citizens states are dying...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And yet Red states are booming and thriving, and the blue, lockdown, killing senior citizens states are dying...



Okay, you tell yourself that, Buddy.  

So why haven't you moved out of Chicago yet?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, you tell yourself that, Buddy.
> 
> So why haven't you moved out of Chicago yet?




I'm not in Chicago.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I'm not in Chicago.


You are in Illinois, though...  so same point applies.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 2, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You are in Illinois, though...  so same point applies.




No...not really...far enough away from the democrat party policies...we are now experiencing shootings out here in the burbs as the gang bangers travel for shopping and entertainment....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...not really...far enough away from the democrat party policies...we are now experiencing shootings out here in the burbs as the gang bangers travel for shopping and entertainment....



Gee, that's a pity... too bad someone made it too easy to get guns!


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jan 3, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So why not let the Democratic cities ban guns if we want to?


Go ahead!

You'll all be easy pickings for the criminals who don't care about you're useless bans, rules, no gun zones, mag restrictions and laws. NYC it's almost impossible for someone to get a carry permit, Ill even worse and they are delaying FOID cards for years, hence no gun for for honest legal persons wishing to defend their families. 

Chicago and NYC are gun lawed to death (many more dem cities) and how's the gun crime doing there? Chiraq number one again. 

NYC has always been ridiculous. 25 years ago my ex lived there. Her father had a few legal registered guns and the necessary paperwork. He had a heart attack and died. Guns had to be disposed of, couldn't even be inherited since they could not get legal papers.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 4, 2022)

Shawnee_b said:


> Go ahead!
> 
> You'll all be easy pickings for the criminals who don't care about you're useless bans, rules, no gun zones, mag restrictions and laws. NYC it's almost impossible for someone to get a carry permit, Ill even worse and they are delaying FOID cards for years, hence no gun for for honest legal persons wishing to defend their families.



A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers.   Guns don't make you safer.  



Shawnee_b said:


> Chicago and NYC are gun lawed to death (many more dem cities) and how's the gun crime doing there? Chiraq number one again.



Uh, no, guy.  Chicago had a very sensible gun law.  Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.


That would be....ya know.....NOT obeying gun laws....

Dambass.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers. Guns don't make you safer.


BULLSHIT.  Prove it.



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, guy. Chicago had a very sensible gun law. Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.


Your murder rate doubled because you're a bunch of filthy criminal thugs at war with each other.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong......cities in Red states not controlled by democrats don't have near the gun murder democrat party cities have...
> 
> 1) the democrats attack and handicap the police
> 
> ...


That cannot be by mistake.  Rather, it's strategic.  They want high gun crime so they can commie gun grab.  

We need to repeal all gun laws forever.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers.   Guns don't make you safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Chicago had a very sensible gun law.  Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.




This....

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 (Jan 4, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers.   Guns don't make you safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Chicago had a very sensible gun law.  Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.




And you left out the war on police started by the democrat party in 2015 and still ongoing........attacks that handicapped the police, and forced them to stop pro-active police work...known as the Ferguson Effect......not wanting to lose their jobs, pensions and freedom by engaging criminals unless they absolutely had to....



> For 27 years Americans bought guns, owned them and carried them in higher and higher numbers.....
> 
> What happened to crime as they did this?
> 
> ...



Crime Rates in Largest U.S. Cities Continue to Drop

Crime in the 30 largest U.S. cities is estimated to have declined in 2018, with decreases in the rates of violent crime, murder, and overall crime, according to a new Brennan Center analysis of the available data.
*
Murder rates in particular were down by 8 percent from 2017, a significant drop. 2018 marks the second straight year that murder rates have fallen, too, after increases in 2015 and 2016. *

Overall, however, U.S. crime rates have dropped dramatically since peaking in 1991.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That would be....ya know.....NOT obeying gun laws....
> 
> Dambass.



Good point.  This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.  



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> BULLSHIT. Prove it.


Kellerman Study. Look it up.  It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence. 


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Your murder rate doubled because you're a bunch of filthy criminal thugs at war with each other.


Nope, it doubled because guns became a lot easier to get.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> his....
> 
> 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,



Kellerman said no such thing. He didn't retract it. He clarified that only 2.7 were murders, and the rest were suicides and accidents...  which still count.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And you left out the war on police started by the democrat party in 2015 and still ongoing........attacks that handicapped the police, and forced them to stop pro-active police work...known as the Ferguson Effect......not wanting to lose their jobs, pensions and freedom by engaging criminals unless they absolutely had to....



There was no Furgeson effect.  If there were, all the BLM cases that happened since 2015 wouldn't have. 

If a cop can't do his job without hassling black people and letting the incidents escalate to lethal force, they should be fired and replaced by someone more competent.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 5, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Good point.  This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.
> 
> 
> Kellerman Study. Look it up.  It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence.
> ...




I posted kellerman....how he had to change his research because it was so bad the first time.........and the CDC was never banned from studying gun violence.......

You guys lie and lie and lie.....

*Kellerman:*

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


*The lie about the CDC research ban...*

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.*


*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*
*-------*

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”
Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

Dr. Lott testifying in 2019 about gun research and the CDC as well as private research..

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



No, The Government Is Not 'Banned' From Studying Gun Violence

Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

Does it? Pointing out that “research plummeted after the 1996 ban” could just as easily tell us that most research funded by the CDC had been politically motivated. Because the idea that the CDC, whose spectacular mission creep has taken it from its primary goal of preventing malaria and other dangerous communicable diseases, to spending hundreds of millions of dollars nagging you about how much salt you put on your steaks or how often you do calisthenics, is nervous about the repercussions of engaging in non-partisan research is hard to believe.
Also unlikely is the notion that a $2.6 million cut in funding so horrified the agency that it was rendered powerless to pay for or conduct studies on gun violence. The CDC funding tripled from 1996 to 2010. The CDC’s budget is over six billion dollars today.
And the idea that the CDC was paralyzed through two-years of full Democratic Party control, and then six years under a president who was more antagonistic towards the Second Amendment than any other in history, is difficult to believe, because it’s provably false.
In 2013, President Barack Obama not only signed an Executive Order directing the CDC to research “gun violence,” the administration also provided an additional $10 million to do it. Here is the study on gun violence that was supposedly banned and yet funded by the CDC. You might not have heard about the resulting research, because it contains numerous inconvenient facts about gun ownership that fails to propel the predetermined narrative. Trump’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar is also open to the idea of funding more gun violence research.
It’s not banned. It’s not chilled.
Meanwhile, numerous states and private entities fund peer-reviewed studies and other research on gun violence. I know this because gun control advocates are constantly sending me studies that distort and conflate issues to help them make their arguments. My inbox is bombarded with studies and conferences and “webinars” dissecting gun violence.
The real problem here is two-fold. One, researchers want the CDC involved so they can access government data about American gun owners. Considering the rhetoric coming from Democrats — gun ownership being tantamount to terrorism, and so on — there’s absolutely no reason Republicans should acquiesce to helping gun controllers circumvent the privacy of Americans citizens peacefully practicing their Constitutional rights.
Second, gun control advocates want to lift the ban on politically skewed research because they’re interested in producing politically skewed research. When the American Medical Association declares gun violence a “public health crisis,” it’s not interested in a balance look at the issue. When researchers advocate lifting the restrictions on advocacy at the CDC, they don’t even pretend they not to hold pre-conceived notions about the outcomes.
-------
There’s no reason to allow activists — then or now — to use the veneer of state-sanctioned science for their partisan purposes. For example, we now know that Rosenberg and others at the CDC turned out to be wrong about the correlation between guns and crime — a steep drop in gun crimes coincided with the explosions of gun ownership from 1996 to 2014.


_


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I posted kellerman....how he had to change his research because it was so bad the first time.........and the CDC was never banned from studying gun violence.......



Wow, you think spamming the thread with your NRA crap impresses anyone other than your fellow Gun Fetishists?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 6, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you think spamming the thread with your NRA crap impresses anyone other than your fellow Gun Fetishists?


What impresses me is your ability and skill in self-deception.

Do you _*really*_ think you calling 2aguy guy's post "NRA crap" is legitimate and makes you look like a reasoned, knowledgeable person?

Hint . . .  It doesn't, 2aguy's post consists of, and links to the CDC and NY Times and HuffPo and Politico and dozens of other sites and sources, *NONE* of which have an NRA domain attached.

Calling it "NRA crap" makes you look like a partisan fool willing to say _anything_ to protect your incorrect positions.  You aren't refuting anything with "NRA crap", it just shows you choose to wear a bubble-wrap helmet of bias.

You make arguing the gun rights side easy . . .  There's no better debate opponent than one who demands you recognize they refuse to educate themselves.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2022)

Abatis said:


> What impresses me is your ability and skill in self-deception.
> 
> Do you _*really*_ think you calling @2aguy guy's post "NRA crap" is legitimate and makes you look like a reasoned, knowledgeable person?



Um, yeah, Frankly, it's kind of easy to see the guy has guns on the brain.  Like all he thinks about is guns.  All the time. 







Abatis said:


> Hint . . . It doesn't, @2aguy's post consists of, and links to the CDC and NY Times and HuffPo and Politico and dozens of other sites and sources, *NONE* of which have an NRA domain attached.



Doesn't matter.  What you never see him do is post things that oppose the gun fetishist position. 

So he'll use the site that defines a mass shooting as 5 or more people being killed and not the standard defintiion of more than one person being shot.  He'll keep claiming Kellerman retracted his claims about guns when all Kellerman did was clarify his data. 







Abatis said:


> Calling it "NRA crap" makes you look like a partisan fool willing to say _anything_ to protect your incorrect positions. You aren't refuting anything with "NRA crap", it just shows you choose to wear a bubble-wrap helmet of bias.
> 
> You make arguing the gun rights side easy . . . There's no better debate opponent than one who demands you recognize they refuse to educate themselves.



The problem with you fetishists is that you fail to even recognize a problem. 

We have 16,000 gun murders in this country a year.   We have another 26,000 gun suicides.   We have 80,000 gun injuries and 400,000 gun crimes.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 7, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, Frankly, it's kind of easy to see the guy has guns on the brain.  Like all he thinks about is guns.  All the time.



Actually my primary focus is the Constitution and government's adherence to it.  I enjoy debating gun rights not because I'm a "gun nut", it's just because it is the easiest branch of con-law to expose how un-American and anti-Liberty leftist loons like you are.



JoeB131 said:


> Doesn't matter.  What you never see him do is post things that oppose the gun fetishist position.



Like so much when right-thinking people are debating wrong-thinking people, the mere action of rejecting your characterizations is demonized by unthinking people like you as "supporting" what *you* oppose. You never get to the core issues, your interest is only about how you feel about a particular issue and the perceived resistance you feel to what you want to do.  

Your emotion burns so hot because it is so shallow.

Rittenhouse is a good example, people like you described him and his actions in such a nefarious and evil way, when a person came back just said "you're wrong and here's why", wacko's like you can only respond with calling us a supporter of "vigilantism" and "executions in the streets" and of course, because it happened at a supposed "BLM protest" we're white supremacists / racists . . . 

See, you hold your positions as emotional construct and are incapable of discussing and/or defending them in the realm of logic and facts . . .  to the point of eliminating from your consideration, black and white law. 

You and your ilk are worse at higher thinking than a child who wants a cookie before dinner and even more immune from any attempts at reason.



JoeB131 said:


> So he'll use the site that defines a mass shooting as 5 or more people being killed and not the standard defintiion of more than one person being shot.



See, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  



JoeB131 said:


> He'll keep claiming Kellerman retracted his claims about guns when all Kellerman did was clarify his data.



Again, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  Kellerman's "study" is indefensible as an empirical exercise.



JoeB131 said:


> The problem with you fetishists is that you fail to even recognize a problem.



No, we see the problem and are very aware of it. We know it deeper than assholes like you who only see "the problem" as a vehicle to amass power and advance the leftist statist authoritarian agenda.  You don't care about the victims or reducing crime because you see  it as the evidence that your "cure" of usurpation is needed.



JoeB131 said:


> We have 16,000 gun murders in this country a year.   We have another 26,000 gun suicides.   We have 80,000 gun injuries and 400,000 gun crimes.



Yup.  And leftist work an agenda of turning a blind eye to _mala en se_ crimes and not holding criminals accountable while advocating the enactment and enforcement of useless _mala prohibita_ statutory laws against people who are not violent criminals.

Honestly, what do you feel about (I can't really ask you how you _think_) the new Manhattan NY District Attorney charging *armed *robbers with petty larceny which would only be subject them to imprisonment of *up to 364 days* in jail.

I have a real problem with it because that means that an *armed* robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.

Is that protecting the public?

Is that "keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have them"?


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jan 7, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, and 83% of murder victims know their killers.   Guns don't make you safer.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy.  Chicago had a very sensible gun law.  Then the National Rampage Association sued to overturn it and between 2014 and 2021, our murder rate doubled.


Made me safer 4 times, 2 times saved my life.

My guns don't kill anyone. I leave them laying around and they don't go anywhere. Remember BC? "_Ray guns don't kill Zorgonians, Zorgonians kill Zorgonians"_

While it is unfair in some peoples minds, "stop and frisk" worked there.

Joe, You're welcome to believe anything you wish but I believe you're in the minority. 






						Does a Gun Make Your Home Safer? | SafeWise
					

Research shows that having a gun at home does not make us safer. SafeWise looks at the latest studies on gun safety.




					www.safewise.com
				



_
The debate surrounding the right to own a gun in the United States is a controversial one, but answering the question about whether having a gun in the house will make you and your family safer is pretty straightforward. Our best bet is to look at the statistics surrounding gun ownership vs. gun violence and draw conclusions based on the research.

Do guns make us safer?

A 2018 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found 58% of Americans agree with the statement “gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.”1 And gun owners seem to believe that idea at a higher rate. Pew Research Center found 65% of men and 71% of women gun owners say the primary reason they carry is for protection.2 While public opinion seems to support the idea that having guns makes us feel safer, science has something different to say about whether guns actually make us safer._


----------



## Shawnee_b (Jan 7, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Good point.  This is why we need a law that says when a gun Store in Indiana sells to people in Illinois, the people killed by those guns can sue them.
> 
> 
> Kellerman Study. Look it up.  It scared the NRA so bad they demanded the CDC stop studying gun violence.
> ...


Legally a gun store in Ind can sell only rifles to an individual in Ill and only if they have a foid. If a handgun was in the mix it has to go to an Ill dealer first, still need foid card. Near impossible to get in Chiraq now.

CDC should not be studying gun violence at all. They first tried to get on the bandwagon in 1984, very good article in Nat Rifleman this month.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 7, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Actually my primary focus is the Constitution and government's adherence to it. I enjoy debating gun rights not because I'm a "gun nut", it's just because it is the easiest branch of con-law to expose how un-American and anti-Liberty leftist loons like you are.



Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking.  I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia.  Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.  

Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.  



Abatis said:


> Rittenhouse is a good example, people like you described him and his actions in such a nefarious and evil way, when a person came back just said "you're wrong and here's why", wacko's like you can only respond with calling us a supporter of "vigilantism" and "executions in the streets" and of course, because it happened at a supposed "BLM protest" we're white supremacists / racists . . .



Okay, guy, here's the thing.  Rittenhouse liked to hang out with the Proud Boys... 


that's how we know he's a racist.  His lawyers did a good job of cleaning him up for court, but it doesn't change him any more than it changed a gangbanger who wears a suit to court.  The problem with the Rittenhouse verdict is that it creates a precendent that you can murder someone in a fight YOU started.  That should be damned scary.  




Abatis said:


> No, we see the problem and are very aware of it. We know it deeper than assholes like you who only see "the problem" as a vehicle to amass power and advance the leftist statist authoritarian agenda. You don't care about the victims or reducing crime because you see it as the evidence that your "cure" of usurpation is needed.



Uh, let's get real here.   We have cops who are equipped like SOLDIERS patrolling our streets because the bad guys have so much firepower.  Businesses have to invest in active shooter policies, magnetic locked doors, a whole procedure of walking ex-employees out of buildings like they are perps, armed security guards, CCTV cameras.   There's a whole industry of locking down our homes like fortresses.  

And you are here whining about "Freedom"?  



Abatis said:


> Yup. And leftist work an agenda of turning a blind eye to _mala en se_ crimes and not holding criminals accountable while advocating the enactment and enforcement of useless _mala prohibita_ statutory laws against people who are not violent criminals.



Uh, one more time.  We lock up 2 million people.  We lock up more people than Red China.  (does anyone else still call it "Red China", or am I just showing my age?) We have another 7 million people on probation or parole.  We have a country locked down like a fortress, and you guys want to do more of that, please.  



Abatis said:


> Honestly, what do you feel about (I can't really ask you how you _think_) the new Manhattan NY District Attorney charging *armed *robbers with petty larceny which would only be subject them to imprisonment of *up to 364 days* in jail.



I think it's another way you guys are distorting a news story to make it sound 100 times worse than it is.  I'm so sure of this, I won't even waste my time googling to prove otherwise. 



Abatis said:


> I have a real problem with it because that means that an *armed* robber, upon conviction, will not become a 18 USC §922(g)(1) prohibited person and will retain the right to buy and possess guns and ammo.


Why should you?  You've established in your tiny little mind that gun ownership is as much a right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion...  why shouldn't he have a right to have a gun?  If the right to self defense is a human right bestowed by a benevolent Sky Pixie, then when shouldn't he have a right to own a gun once he's out of jail?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 7, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking.  I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia.  Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.
> 
> Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.
> 
> ...




Proud Boys are not a racist organization, you know this, but continue to say it....

You are just nuts....


----------



## Abatis (Jan 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, a whole problem with your "Constitution as a suicide pact" thinking.



I agree, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.  You of course look at it backwards; that what must be preserved is government's power, no matter how far government has wandered from its establishing principles.

Me, I believe that what must be preserved is the liberty and rights of the people . . .  After all, it is "We the People" with the ultimate power to enforce the Constitution, even declare the Constitution void and reclaim the powers conferred; to reassume the powers granted through the Constitution that created the government.

The retained right to keep and bear arms, (forever held inviolate by the 2nd Amendment), is the back-up, just in case that action of the People rescinding our consent to be governed can not be done peacefully.



JoeB131 said:


> I didn't sign up to be victimized by thugs and nuts who are able to buy machine guns, because 240 years ago, some slave rapist who shit in a chamber pot couldn't clearly define a militia.  Absent your perverted interpretation of the Militia Amendment, is there really a good reason to let ANYONE who wants a gun have one.



Well, that is one way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.



JoeB131 said:


> Every other country has this right. You have to prove why you need a gun, the government shouldn't have to prove why you don't.



And that is another way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.



JoeB131 said:


> I think it's another way you guys are distorting a news story to make it sound 100 times worse than it is.  I'm so sure of this, I won't even waste my time googling to prove otherwise.



Staying ignorant is certainly your right; just don't expect your uninformed mutterings to be respected.



JoeB131 said:


> Why should you?  You've established in your tiny little mind that gun ownership is as much a right as freedom of speech or freedom of religion...



Not just my little mind, I'm content to stand on many determinations of SCOTUS on that point. I know I'm not alone and I'm in much better company than you.



JoeB131 said:


> why shouldn't he have a right to have a gun?  If the right to self defense is a human right bestowed by a benevolent Sky Pixie, then when shouldn't he have a right to own a gun once he's out of jail?



I was speaking on what the law is and the effects of the law.  The disablement of rights (RKBA is only one) upon conviction for certain serious crimes is a matter well settled in law and has been upheld as legitimate after due process, as secured by the 5th and 14th Amendments. See _Lewis v. United States_, *445 U.S. 55* (1980).

Are anti-gunners so desperate as to now argue against what is a foundational premise of gun control, that we must keep guns out of the hands of people that Congress believes shouldn't have them?

I swear, you goofballs are turning the world upside down . . .


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I agree, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. You of course look at it backwards; that what must be preserved is government's power, no matter how far government has wandered from its establishing principles.



You work on the assumption that "government" is this evil force that just does things to mess with you.  Government, even the worst of them, reflect the will of their people.   All the Awful things Hitler did, the German people were down with it until they fought to the last old man and little boy.  



Abatis said:


> Me, I believe that what must be preserved is the liberty and rights of the people . . . After all, it is "We the People" with the ultimate power to enforce the Constitution, even declare the Constitution void and reclaim the powers conferred; to reassume the powers granted through the Constitution that created the government.



Whenever you shitheads talk about "liberty", you usually mean the rights of rich white people to abuse the rest of us.   Check your privilege.  



Abatis said:


> The retained right to keep and bear arms, (forever held inviolate by the 2nd Amendment), is the back-up, just in case that action of the People rescinding our consent to be governed can not be done peacefully.



Okay, so if Black Lives Matters decides tomorrow to stage an armed insurrection to get police reform, you are going to be totally down with that, right?  By your logic, this is what you have just said, that any group of assholes with guns can "rescind" consent to be governed.  Or did you just mean white people?  

This is what makes you gun fetishists so fucking dangerous, is that you think you needs you the guns to fights the gummit.  



Abatis said:


> Well, that is one way to tell everyone that you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory, without expressly saying you don't understand the Constitution or Lockean rights theory.



Or I don't care about them.  There are no rights.  Any fool who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".  Despite your "Lockean Rights Theory", we rounded up 110,000 Americans of Japanese descent and sent them off to camps for 4 years.  No one objected.  No one rushed out with their guns and said, "You can't take Ito, he's a swell guy!!!"  

(This is where the Tiny-dicked Gun Fetishist will chime in 'FDR Did that. FDR is evil!!!") 

We don't have rights.  We have privileges that the majority begrudgingly puts up with.  The only question is, should we continue to put up with the gun fetishists?  How many times do we have to traumitize our kids with Active Shooter Drills








Abatis said:


> Staying ignorant is certainly your right; just don't expect your uninformed mutterings to be respected.



If you actually had a case, you'd have put a link for me to make fun of.  


Abatis said:


> Not just my little mind, I'm content to stand on many determinations of SCOTUS on that point. I know I'm not alone and I'm in much better company than you.



Only a matter of time before we get a sane majority on SCOTUS... 



Abatis said:


> I was speaking on what the law is and the effects of the law. The disablement of rights (RKBA is only one) upon conviction for certain serious crimes is a matter well settled in law and has been upheld as legitimate after due process, as secured by the 5th and 14th Amendments. See _Lewis v. United States_, *445 U.S. 55* (1980).
> 
> Are anti-gunners so desperate as to now argue against what is a foundational premise of gun control, that we must keep guns out of the hands of people that Congress believes shouldn't have them?



Guy, you can't have it both ways.  Either guns are a right conveyed by a Mighty and Benevolent Fairy in the Clouds, or they are the pronouncements of Congress.  

So if Congress decides guns shouldn't be in the hands of anyone who isn't a soldier or a policeman, you should be fine with that.  But of course you aren't.   

Silly Darkie.  Rights are for White People.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Proud Boys are not a racist organization, you know this, but continue to say it....



The Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups says they are...


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups says they are...



The Southern Poverty Law Center is, itself, a left wing, racist, hate group, used to smear enemies of the democrat party.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Southern Poverty Law Center is, itself, a left wing, racist, hate group, used to smear enemies of the democrat party.



Up is down
Right is wrong
Guns make us safer

DickTiny's Bizarro World


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.


So then you are saying we should actually enforce federal gun laws and put everyone found to be in possession of a firearm who is defined by federal law as a person who is prohibited in federal prison for a minimum of 5 years, right?

FYI when cities in this country actually did that, a statistically significant drop in violent crimes was the result.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 8, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So then you are saying we should actually enforce federal gun laws and put everyone found to be in possession of a firearm who is defined by federal law as a person who is prohibited in federal prison for a minimum of 5 years, right?
> 
> FYI when cities in this country actually did that, a statistically significant drop in violent crimes was the result.



Nope. We need to totally ban guns... not lock up people...


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 8, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Nope. We need to totally ban guns... not lock up people...


Never gonna happen.

So when you can actually be a realist let me know


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Never gonna happen.
> 
> So when you can actually be a realist let me know



You think locking everyone up who commits a minor violation is "realistic"?  We lock up 2 million people now, how is that working out for us?


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> You think locking everyone up who commits a minor violation is "realistic"?  We lock up 2 million people now, how is that working out for us?


Possessing a gun illegally is not a minor violation it is a felony.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Possessing a gun illegally is not a minor violation it is a felony.



So what's your point?  Cheating on your taxes is a felony, but it's estimated that 1.6 Million Americans do.  We lock very few of them up. 

Again, we lock up 2 million people.  How is that working out for us again?


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So what's your point?  Cheating on your taxes is a felony, but it's estimated that 1.6 Million Americans do.  We lock very few of them up.
> 
> Again, we lock up 2 million people.  How is that working out for us again?


We lock up the wrong people.  I don;t know how many times you have to hear that before it sinks into that sludge you call a brain.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We lock up the wrong people. I don;t know how many times you have to hear that before it sinks into that sludge you call a brain.



No, we lock up too many people.  We lock up people based on their race and wealth instead of the seriousness of their crime.  

Rush Limbaugh gets rehab, the poor black kid gets prison. 

Aunt Becky gets 11 days, the poor woman who tried to get her kid out of the school with the metal detectors got five years.  

If you catch someone with a gun they shouldn't have, you take their gun. Period.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, we lock up too many people.  We lock up people based on their race and wealth instead of the seriousness of their crime.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh gets rehab, the poor black kid gets prison.
> 
> ...


We lock up the wrong people.

We lock up more people for petty drug offenses than we do for violent crimes.
We lock up more people for property crimes than we do for violent crimes

Our bail policies are way off base
People are sitting in jails for years awaiting trial.

In fact most people in state and county prisons have not even been convicted of a crime.

Those are the problems with our so called justice system.

Legalizing drugs is the staring point just by doing that we can unclog both the courts and the prisons, free up the cops to actually go after dangerous criminals, save billions of dollars annually that can be used for treatment etc.

None of that has anything to do with the fact that locking up people who break gun laws has been proven to reduce crime in those cities that have done it.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> We lock up the wrong people.
> 
> We lock up more people for petty drug offenses than we do for violent crimes.
> We lock up more people for property crimes than we do for violent crimes
> ...



Well, according to NRA Propaganda, anyway.  They don't report the cities that tried this and failed.  

I don't disagree with you, a lot of our "justice" system is broken. 

But pretending that guns aren't a big part of that equation- most of them people killing family members or associates, is disingenuous.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> No, we lock up too many people.  We lock up people based on their race and wealth instead of the seriousness of their crime.
> 
> Rush Limbaugh gets rehab, the poor black kid gets prison.
> 
> ...




No.....the democrats are releasing the worst of the worst over and over again.......keep them locked up.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, according to NRA Propaganda, anyway.  They don't report the cities that tried this and failed.
> 
> I don't disagree with you, a lot of our "justice" system is broken.
> 
> But pretending that guns aren't a big part of that equation- most of them people killing family members or associates, is disingenuous.




You fixate on the NRA, one organization actually trying to keep violent gun offenders in prison, while the democrat party is reducing the prison time for armed robbery and drive by shootings....you really are an idiot.

The majority of gun murder victims are criminals.....and the friends and family of criminals........yet you don't want to stop them, you want them on the street.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, according to NRA Propaganda, anyway.  They don't report the cities that tried this and failed.
> 
> I don't disagree with you, a lot of our "justice" system is broken.
> 
> But pretending that guns aren't a big part of that equation- most of them people killing family members or associates, is disingenuous.


Guns are not the cause of crime.

Our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950.  

Like I said before everyone knows where 70 - 80 % of all murders occur but the powers that be don't give a shit because it's young inner city minority males killing other young inner city minority males.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No.....the democrats are releasing the worst of the worst over and over again.......keep them locked up.


We lock up 2 million people. 
We lock up 2 million people
We Lock up 2 million people

Locking people up doesn't make us any safer. 



2aguy said:


> You fixate on the NRA, one organization actually trying to keep violent gun offenders in prison, while the democrat party is reducing the prison time for armed robbery and drive by shootings....you really are an idiot.



It costs $70,000 to lock up a criminal a year.  We could give each and every one of them a job, and solve our problems. 



Blues Man said:


> Like I said before everyone knows where 70 - 80 % of all murders occur but the powers that be don't give a shit because it's young inner city minority males killing other young inner city minority males.


RIght, and we all know THOSE people don't count.  We only care for a day or two when it's white kids getting slaughtered at Stoneman or Sandy Hook.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.
> We lock up 2 million people
> We Lock up 2 million people
> 
> ...


We lock up the wrong people
We lock up the wrong people
We lock up the wrong people
We lock up the wrong people

See I can do that too.

And I already told how we can cut down the number of people we lock up by well over half.

And I never said those people don't count but the fucking state and federal governments who run our law enforcement certainly don't think they matter.

The facts are plain to see if you'll only open your eyes a fraction of what you open your mouth


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And I already told how we can cut down the number of people we lock up by well over half.



And that would STILL be too many.  



Blues Man said:


> And I never said those people don't count but the fucking state and federal governments who run our law enforcement certainly don't think they matter.



Murder enforcement isn't a state or federal matter... it's a local one.  The problem is, local governments WANT to ban guns, but the NRA keeps running to the courts to get protection for their profits.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> And that would STILL be too many.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder enforcement isn't a state or federal matter... it's a local one.  The problem is, local governments WANT to ban guns, but the NRA keeps running to the courts to get protection for their profits.



Gun laws are a federal matter but we don't enforce our gun laws.  Local governments and law enforcement don't give a shit about what happens in the poorest neighborhoods and never really did.

And if you want to ban guns you'll need to change the Constitution.  Good luck with that.  A gun ban will do nothing but increase the illegal gun trade and increase crime just like Prohibition did, just like to failed war on drugs did.

Like I said when you want to be a realist and deal with the actual problem and not just spout your naïve idealism get back to me.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> We lock up 2 million people.
> We lock up 2 million people
> We Lock up 2 million people
> 
> ...




Moron, the democrat party lets the most violent, known, repeat offenders over and over again, so it doesn't matter how many we lock up, they keep releasing the worst of the worst......

That 70,000 dollars is a lot less than allowing the violent assholes to run free......the ones shooting people and causing the medical costs........

Those "people" don't count to people like you because you keep voting for the political party, the democrats, who keep releasing violent criminals who murder black Americans......you let them out...over and over again.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 9, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Gun laws are a federal matter but we don't enforce our gun laws.



Well, yeah, they are designed to be toothless, thanks to the NRA.  



2aguy said:


> Moron, the democrat party lets the most violent, known, repeat offenders over and over again, so it doesn't matter how many we lock up, they keep releasing the worst of the worst......
> 
> That 70,000 dollars is a lot less than allowing the violent assholes to run free......the ones shooting people and causing the medical costs........



Which they wouldn't be able to do if they weren't able to get guns so easily. 

You see, everyone else in the world has figured this out.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, yeah, they are designed to be toothless, thanks to the NRA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with the NRA.

Local governments and law enforcement do not prosecute gun crimes.  In fact gun charges are usually the first offenses to be dropped.

So you whine about crimes committed with guns but you don;t want to put people in jail for crimes committed with guns.

That is naivete bordering on retardation.

So take a step into the real world and grow the fuck up.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Local governments and law enforcement do not prosecute gun crimes. In fact gun charges are usually the first offenses to be dropped.
> 
> So you whine about crimes committed with guns but you don;t want to put people in jail for crimes committed with guns.
> 
> ...



Kind of hard to charge gun crimes when the NRA will turn anyone charged with one into a martyr.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jan 10, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks hate groups says they are...


That deserves an award in the humor section!


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Kind of hard to charge gun crimes when the NRA will turn anyone charged with one into a martyr.


The NRA isn't as powerful as you seem to think it is.

But you need a boogeyman I guess.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The NRA isn't as powerful as you seem to think it is.
> 
> But you need a boogeyman I guess.



The NRA is way to powerful.   The CDC finds guns are more likely to kill household members than bad guys, the NRA got all gun studies by the CDC stopped.  

A court ruled that a gunmaker was responsible for making it too easy for the DC Snipers to get guns, the NRA got a law passed immunizing gun makers and sellers from criminal liability.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 11, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The NRA is way to powerful.   The CDC finds guns are more likely to kill household members than bad guys, the NRA got all gun studies by the CDC stopped.
> 
> A court ruled that a gunmaker was responsible for making it too easy for the DC Snipers to get guns, the NRA got a law passed immunizing gun makers and sellers from criminal liability.


Yawn.

The CDC is not the arbiter of the rights of the people.

If you don't want to own a gun don't but you have no say in what other choose to do.

The fact is you have a 99.996% chance of not being murdered by a person using a gun.

If that scares you then that's your problem


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The CDC is not the arbiter of the rights of the people.
> 
> If you don't want to own a gun don't but you have no say in what other choose to do.
> 
> ...



Actually, the 78% of us who don't have a gun fetish are getting a little sick and tired of being held hostage by the 3% of you who do.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, the 78% of us who don't have a gun fetish are getting a little sick and tired of being held hostage by the 3% of you who do.


What a fucking drama queen.

The fact that I own a couple guns has absolutely no bearing on your pathetic life.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 12, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> The NRA is way to powerful.   The CDC finds guns are more likely to kill household members than bad guys, the NRA got all gun studies by the CDC stopped.
> 
> A court ruled that a gunmaker was responsible for making it too easy for the DC Snipers to get guns, the NRA got a law passed immunizing gun makers and sellers from criminal liability.



You lying moron, the CDC was never prevented from doing gun research….I posted research on guns that the cdc did after they were told they couldn’t push gun control…

This need to lie…….this is why we will never trust you ant-gun assholes


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> What a fucking drama queen.
> 
> The fact that I own a couple guns has absolutely no bearing on your pathetic life.



Really?
Security Guards
magnetic lock doors
Militarized police
Active Shooter drills
270 BILLION in gun-related economic losses every year. 



2aguy said:


> You lying moron, the CDC was never prevented from doing gun research….I posted research on guns that the cdc did after they were told they couldn’t push gun control…



Hmmm... Okay, so what about this?





__





						Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




_In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study by Arthur Kellermann and others found that guns in the home were associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home. The research was funded by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC). The NRA responded by lobbying for the elimination of the NCIPC. The NCIPC was not abolished, but the Dickey Amendment was included in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997.[2][5]

In a December 2012 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Kellermann wrote: "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up."[2]

Equivalent "Dickey Amendment" language was added by Congress to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 funding the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This language was also lobbied for by the NRA.__[2_]


----------



## Abatis (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Hmmm... Okay, so what about this?



Well, it sure did not ban any research into gun injury . . .   All that can be said is the partisan hacks at the CDC didn't think they could keep their rabid, gun control driven anti-gun agenda out of the epidemiological work . . .  So they decided not to do any work on gun injury.

Here in yellow is the full and complete "Dickey Amendment":


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, it sure did not ban any research into gun injury . . . All that can be said is the partisan hacks at the CDC didn't think they could keep their rabid, gun control driven anti-gun agenda out of the epidemiological work . . . So they decided not to do any work on gun injury.
> 
> Here in yellow is the full and complete "Dickey Amendment":



Yes, that's one of those vague terms that gets you into trouble, like "Reasonable accommedation" in the ADA.  

The problem was, the Dicky Amendment was written in response to the Kellerman Study, which found that for every bad guy killed in self defense, 43 household members died in suicides, domestic violence or accidents.    This simply was NOT what the Gun industry wanted to hear!   Let's run to Congress and stop the CDC from informing people.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?
> Security Guards
> magnetic lock doors
> Militarized police
> ...



I have never encountered any of those things and I doubt you have either.

The fact that I own a couple guns has absolutely no effect on your pathetic life.

It's time you grew up and realized that no one has to cater to your fears.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?
> Security Guards
> magnetic lock doors
> Militarized police
> ...




Kellerman was wrong, and had to redo his study...

Kellerman also admitted, when asked, if he wanted his wife to own a gun in their home for self defense...he said yes....

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 (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, that's one of those vague terms that gets you into trouble, like "Reasonable accommedation" in the ADA.
> 
> The problem was, the Dicky Amendment was written in response to the Kellerman Study, which found that for every bad guy killed in self defense, 43 household members died in suicides, domestic violence or accidents.    This simply was NOT what the Gun industry wanted to hear!   Let's run to Congress and stop the CDC from informing people.




Wronng...

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 (Jan 13, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Really?
> Security Guards
> magnetic lock doors
> Militarized police
> ...




Just some of the gun research done after the passage of the Dickey Amendment....

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (_Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented __historical series__)._ Here is what we showed the committee:


_Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine __article__ that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants._
Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

I*n summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.*


_The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, __Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence__, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”_
_The brazen __public comments__ of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals._
_“*We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.*


*CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.*
_


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 13, 2022)

Holy fuck, Dick Tiny spooged on the thread.  It's like you say "Kellerman" and it's a magic word. 

Watch.

Kellerman!!!! 

Anyway, 



Blues Man said:


> I have never encountered any of those things and I doubt you have either.



I guess you wouldn't if you live in someone's basement.  In the real world, um, yeay, we have to put up with your fetish all the time.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 14, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Holy fuck, Dick Tiny spooged on the thread.  It's like you say "Kellerman" and it's a magic word.
> 
> Watch.
> 
> ...


I live in a nice quiet slice of the country on about 10 acres in a nice Craftsman style home I built myself.

And I grew up in the shittiest part of a shitty city and I know more about crime and violence than you ever will.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I live in a nice quiet slice of the country on about 10 acres in a nice Craftsman style home I built myself.
> 
> And I grew up in the shittiest part of a shitty city and I know more about crime and violence than you ever will.



So you lived somewhere that was unliveable thanks to the gun industry and you moved out to Cleetusland.. nice.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So you lived somewhere that was unliveable thanks to the gun industry and you moved out to Cleetusland.. nice.


It wasn't the gun industry's fault.

it is the fault of the local and state governments and the fucking police that decided to ignore the problem.

Like I said everyone knows exactly where the most murders occur.  Everyone knows it's mostly young minority males killing other young minority males.  Everyone knows that the illegal drug trade is the biggest factor in the violence.

No one gives a shit and you only pretend to so you can push your own gun ban agenda.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said everyone knows exactly where the most murders occur. Everyone knows it's mostly young minority males killing other young minority males. Everyone knows that the illegal drug trade is the biggest factor in the violence.


 So if it's just the darkies killing each other, no biggie, right? 

Except 83 of homcides are domestic violence, but never mind


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So if it's just the darkies killing each other, no biggie, right?
> 
> Except 83 of homcides are domestic violence, but never mind


That's you saying that not me.

My Mother was half Black so I tend not to use derogatory racial slurs unlike you.

Of course you totally ignored the part where I said it's the powers that be that do nothing.  Federal state and local governments and law enforcement don't care if poor young minorities kill each other.  This is proven by the FACT that nothing is ever done but lip service and unrealistic talking points.  You know the kind of stuff you're so good at.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Of course you totally ignored the part where I said it's the powers that be that do nothing. Federal state and local governments and law enforcement don't care if poor young minorities kill each other. This is proven by the FACT that nothing is ever done but lip service and unrealistic talking points. You know the kind of stuff you're so good at.



I ignore it because we all know whenever you guys talk about "enforcement", it's just more excuses to hassle people of color. 

check out this video, how cops handle a white person walking around with an AR-15, and a black guy.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> So if it's just the darkies killing each other, no biggie, right?
> 
> Except 83 of homcides are domestic violence, but never mind




Yeah...gang members shooting their baby mommas, or other relatives cause they should have been in jail, not roaming the streets free, because a democrat party prosecutor and judge let them go without bail.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I ignore it because we all know whenever you guys talk about "enforcement", it's just more excuses to hassle people of color.
> 
> check out this video, how cops handle a white person walking around with an AR-15, and a black guy.




You mean like the black guys walking n the Dallas march with rifles and pistols....who were left alone by the police....even after the BLM supporter started murdering 6 police officers....you mean like them...

The black gun owners had AR-15 rifles and pistols...marching down the street, and the cops left them alone.......then, when the BLM supporter started shooting the police, the police still didn't do anything to the black guys with their rifles and pistols...

Your brain is so damaged you couldn't see the truth if it bit you on the ass.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I ignore it because we all know whenever you guys talk about "enforcement", it's just more excuses to hassle people of color.
> 
> check out this video, how cops handle a white person walking around with an AR-15, and a black guy.




You mean like all these black Americans and all of their rifles......left alone, ........by the police?

All those black Americans....with AR-15 rifles and pistols......and they aren't being harrassed by the police.......

You are such an idiot....

Don't point a gun at police...don't shoot at police....and odds are they won't be shooting you either.....you dumb ass...


----------



## Flash (Jan 15, 2022)

The shitheads that commit crimes with firearms don't give a crap about the laws.

Gun control laws are only a burden on our Liberty to keep and bear arms, as assigned in the Constitution.

Of course the Liberals that support gun control don't do it for public safety.  They just don't like the people having the power to correct government abuse if the need be.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I ignore it because we all know whenever you guys talk about "enforcement", it's just more excuses to hassle people of color.
> 
> check out this video, how cops handle a white person walking around with an AR-15, and a black guy.


No it's about getting criminals off the street.

And Like I said before I am part Black and I don't care what color skin a piece of shit criminal has.

And I am not responsible for what law enforcement does or doesn't do just like i am not responsible for what criminals do.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jan 15, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Actual story- Gun laws have no effect when they aren't enforced and the states next door still allow easy gun access.


Your grammar is awful as your logic


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You mean like the black guys walking n the Dallas march with rifles and pistols....who were left alone by the police....even after the BLM supporter started murdering 6 police officers....you mean like them...



What I remember about that was the cops busted anyone with a gun at that march, and claimed there were multiple shooters before admitting there was only one guy. 




2aguy said:


> You mean like all these black Americans and all of their rifles......left alone, ........by the police?
> 
> All those black Americans....with AR-15 rifles and pistols......and they aren't being harrassed by the police.......



You mean in a pre-planned protest where they told the police in advance they would all be there with their guns. 

Come on, address the video I posted, where a single white guy was walking down a busy street with an AR and treated courteously, while a single black guy walking with his pregnant girlfriend had a half dozen police cruisers converge on him with guns drawn.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it's about getting criminals off the street.
> 
> And Like I said before I am part Black and I don't care what color skin a piece of shit criminal has.
> 
> And I am not responsible for what law enforcement does or doesn't do just like i am not responsible for what criminals do.



Except neither of those men were "Criminals".  They were both openly carrying assault rifles in open carry states.  

The white guy was treated politely and mouthed off to the cop, refusing to show his ID.

The black guy had a half dozen cops descend on him, guns drawn!


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Except neither of those men were "Criminals".  They were both openly carrying assault rifles in open carry states.
> 
> The white guy was treated politely and mouthed off to the cop, refusing to show his ID.
> 
> The black guy had a half dozen cops descend on him, guns drawn!


I didn't say those to guys were criminals did I?

And what do you want me to do about the cops?

In all honesty if more Black people became police officers we might see some changes but that's not going to happen.

All of these societal variables add up and are all part of why federal and state government and most of the population of the US just don't care if young poor urban minority males kill each other off.

This is where the real problem lies but you're to simplistic a thinker to realize the long and complex interaction of social, economic, political and cultural variables that make such a situation possible.  You think all we have to do is ban all guns and like magic the world is a better place.

Like I said before that's naivete to the point of mental retardation.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I didn't say those to guys were criminals did I?
> 
> And what do you want me to do about the cops?
> 
> In all honesty if more Black people became police officers we might see some changes but that's not going to happen.



Well, you could try supporting police reform.  Here's the thing. I really don't have a problem with how the cop handled EITHER of these situations.  They contained the potential threat.  Of course, if either of these guys actually had ill-intent, the first cop probably would have been in trouble because the white guy he wasn't taking seriously would have had the drop on him.  

While you can really denounce police violence, and I have, you also have to understand the cops point of view.  Any idiot you pull over for a busted headlight (like I was the other day) might pull a gun on you.  Because it is way to easy for people to get guns.    Where I fault the cops is that the Police Unions don't challenge the NRA when they insist the founders would have wanted average Americans to have armor-piercing bullets.  









						The NRA Wins Again on Armor-piercing Bullets, But Common Sense Was Already Lost
					

Whether they know it or not, the ATF's decision to shelve its new armor-piercing guideline is actually a victory for all of us who want laws to be reasonable, responsible and fashioned to reflect both reality plus a dose of good old common sense.




					www.huffpost.com
				








Blues Man said:


> All of these societal variables add up and are all part of why federal and state government and most of the population of the US just don't care if young poor urban minority males kill each other off.



Um. No.  The problem really are the guns.  Most gun deaths are domestic violence and suicide.   The gang drive by just gets more attention, unless it is driven off the front page by the white loner who shoots up a school or a shopping mall.  



Blues Man said:


> This is where the real problem lies but you're to simplistic a thinker to realize the long and complex interaction of social, economic, political and cultural variables that make such a situation possible. You think all we have to do is ban all guns and like magic the world is a better place.



Actually, most of the rest of the industrialized world does ban guns, and they are better places... It's just our corner of the world were we accept this kind of shit because the NRA has bullied the rest of the country into acceptance.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, you could try supporting police reform.  Here's the thing. I really don't have a problem with how the cop handled EITHER of these situations.  They contained the potential threat.  Of course, if either of these guys actually had ill-intent, the first cop probably would have been in trouble because the white guy he wasn't taking seriously would have had the drop on him.
> 
> While you can really denounce police violence, and I have, you also have to understand the cops point of view.  Any idiot you pull over for a busted headlight (like I was the other day) might pull a gun on you.  Because it is way to easy for people to get guns.    Where I fault the cops is that the Police Unions don't challenge the NRA when they insist the founders would have wanted average Americans to have armor-piercing bullets.
> 
> ...


The cops are more likely to pull a Black guy over for a busted tail light than some white dude.

And I don't believe that places like Japan and the UK are better than the US.

You want to whine about the murder rate but the fact is the murder rate in the US is the same as it was in 1950.  Crime rates have been going down for decades.  Violent crimes in particular are decreasing.  Most crimes in the US are drug and property crimes.

The facts are that our murder rate is driven by inner city violence and is not a widespread problem.  And I'll repeat myself here.  We know where the most murders take place.  We know what segment of the population is getting murdered at the highest rate.  We just don't care.

If we had the testicular fortitude to actually try to stop the violence in our inner cities we could reduce our murder rate by 50 to 70% which would put us in line with all those other countries you think are better than the US.

So once again our problem is our own making
.  it's not the fault of the average guy who owns a couple guns and it's not the fault of gun manufacturers.,


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> What I remember about that was the cops busted anyone with a gun at that march, and claimed there were multiple shooters before admitting there was only one guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Address my response showing dozens of black Americans with AR-15 rifles and pistols, and they were not bothered by the police....you moron.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 16, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, you could try supporting police reform.  Here's the thing. I really don't have a problem with how the cop handled EITHER of these situations.  They contained the potential threat.  Of course, if either of these guys actually had ill-intent, the first cop probably would have been in trouble because the white guy he wasn't taking seriously would have had the drop on him.
> 
> While you can really denounce police violence, and I have, you also have to understand the cops point of view.  Any idiot you pull over for a busted headlight (like I was the other day) might pull a gun on you.  Because it is way to easy for people to get guns.    Where I fault the cops is that the Police Unions don't challenge the NRA when they insist the founders would have wanted average Americans to have armor-piercing bullets.
> 
> ...




Suicide has nothing to do with guns, considering South Korea, China, Japan all have extreme gun control and higher suicide rates than we do...

And the vast majority of all murder of all kinds are criminals murdering other criminals.....and their baby mommas, children, friends and associates getting caught in the crossfire...

Normal Americans are not the victims of gun crime unless they blunder into a democrat party controlled city...


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The cops are more likely to pull a Black guy over for a busted tail light than some white dude.


I agree.  And they are more likely to use that as a pretext to search his car, etc.  



Blues Man said:


> And I don't believe that places like Japan and the UK are better than the US.


No, but they are handling THIS particular problem a lot better.   Maybe we should look at what they are doing right and compare it to what we are doing wrong. 



Blues Man said:


> You want to whine about the murder rate but the fact is the murder rate in the US is the same as it was in 1950. Crime rates have been going down for decades. Violent crimes in particular are decreasing. Most crimes in the US are drug and property crimes.



Most murders are domestic violence... but we keep shovelling guns out to people who shouldn't have them. 



Blues Man said:


> The facts are that our murder rate is driven by inner city violence and is not a widespread problem. And I'll repeat myself here. We know where the most murders take place. We know what segment of the population is getting murdered at the highest rate. We just don't care.



I know, man, it's just the darkies...   we get that.  Of course, you won't let those inner cities ban guns if they want to.  



Blues Man said:


> If we had the testicular fortitude to actually try to stop the violence in our inner cities we could reduce our murder rate by 50 to 70% which would put us in line with all those other countries you think are better than the US.



Actually, a 70% reduction would STILL be a lot higher than those countries.   



Blues Man said:


> So once again our problem is our own making
> . it's not the fault of the average guy who owns a couple guns and it's not the fault of gun manufacturers.,



The average guy is the one whose guns get stolen for the criminals to use, and the gun industry's refusal to even consider the most common sense gun control (Waiting periods, background checks, closing the gun show loophole), definitely contributes to the problem.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I agree.  And they are more likely to use that as a pretext to search his car, etc.
> 
> 
> No, but they are handling THIS particular problem a lot better.   Maybe we should look at what they are doing right and compare it to what we are doing wrong.
> ...


No most murders are NOT domestic violence.

most murders involve criminals killing other criminals.

And no a 70% reduction from about 5 per 100000 is actually 1.5 per 100000

The murder rate in the UK is about 1.2 per 100000

Only 1 in 5 homicides involve an intimate partner

80% of all murder victims are men 

Just because murder victim usually know their attacker in some capacity in no way means most murders are domestic violence.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Most murders are domestic violence...



You spread your BS everywhere don't you . . .

I know for a fact your "most" statement just doesn't add up, (no matter who/what you assign it to -- this "domestic violence" shtick is the latest lie), at least using numbers from *the most recent FBI-UCR*:


"In 2019, 28.3 percent of homicide victims were killed by someone they knew other than family members (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.), 13.0 percent were slain by family members, and 9.9 percent were killed by strangers. The relationship between murder victims and offenders was unknown in 48.9 percent of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter incidents."​

28% + 13% = 41%, which is *not* the "most" of anything, especially not "domestic violence".

Of the total murders in 2019, 9.9% of murder victims are killed by strangers and for 49% of all murders, *no relationship between murder victim and offender was ascertained.*

The best that you can possibly hope for is to qualify your statement; you could safely say, "most people who are murdered are murdered by people they know" -- _for just the incidents _where _a relationship_* is known*. . . .  And that *DEFINITELY* ain't just "domestic violence".

STOP YOUR BULLSHIT; STOP LYING!


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I agree.  And they are more likely to use that as a pretext to search his car, etc.
> 
> 
> No, but they are handling THIS particular problem a lot better.   Maybe we should look at what they are doing right and compare it to what we are doing wrong.
> ...




*The average guy is the one whose guns get stolen for the criminals to use, and the gun industry's refusal to even consider the most common sense gun control (Waiting periods, background checks, closing the gun show loophole), definitely contributes to the problem.*


Our problem isn't the average, normal gun owner......our problem is the democrat party, the slave rapist party you keep voting for...

1) they attack the police to the point the police can't and won't do their jobs.

2) they release known, violent gun criminals over and over again, no matter how many times they are arrested for gun crime and gun murder..

Waiting periods, background checks, and the mythical gun show loophole are ignored by criminals.....

Nothing you propose lowers the gun crime rate...nothing.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No most murders are NOT domestic violence.





Abatis said:


> You spread your BS everywhere don't you . . .
> 
> I know for a fact your "most" statement just doesn't add up, (no matter who/what you assign it to -- this "domestic violence" shtick is the latest lie), at least using numbers from *the most recent FBI-UCR*:



Yawn... 

Reality- Most people are killed by people they know...  you know it, I k now it.   You try to write it off as "those people" (except you won't let those people pass gun laws intheir own communities.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 17, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn...
> 
> Reality- Most people are killed by people they know...  you know it, I k now it.   You try to write it off as "those people" (except you won't let those people pass gun laws intheir own communities.



Yawn???  

_Real_ cited / sourced / quoted stats bore you huh?

The "reality" is, you use words without any connection to their true meanings; the words "*fact*" and "reality" are not defined by your wishful thinking.

The "fact" is you are incapable of supporting "most" of what you say and that "reality" means you can and should be dismissed as a competent voice in all but the most superficial discussions on public policy.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 18, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Yawn???
> 
> _Real_ cited / sourced / quoted stats bore you huh?



They do when they come from gun nuts... yeah.  You guys look at the carnage caused by your fetish and always find an excuse... "Oh, those are suicides, that doesn't count." "Oh, that person got in trouble with the law once, he doesn't count, either."  

And it kind of works, unfortunately... the only time you guys have to really work for it is when a bunch of white people get shot up in a mall or a preschool. 

The absolute last thing you want is for the 78% of us who don't own guns to say, "Why the fuck are we putting up with this?"


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yawn...
> 
> Reality- Most people are killed by people they know...  you know it, I k now it.   You try to write it off as "those people" (except you won't let those people pass gun laws intheir own communities.


Does everyone you know live with you in your home?

I know hundreds of people to varying degrees that doesn't mean any of them are part of my domestic life.





__





						Domestic Violence
					






					www.justice.gov
				




The term “domestic violence” includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Does everyone you know live with you in your home?
> 
> I know hundreds of people to varying degrees that doesn't mean any of them are part of my domestic life.
> 
> ...




Yeah....and he knows those aren't the most common murders.....criminals shooting each other for turf, reputation, insults, girlfriends, and then members of their family or friends getting hit in the crossfire are the most common murders in the U.S...


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 18, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah....and he knows those aren't the most common murders.....criminals shooting each other for turf, reputation, insults, girlfriends, and then members of their family or friends getting hit in the crossfire are the most common murders in the U.S...


Only 1 in 5 murders involve an intimate partner

And unfortunately most of those victims are women.

But 80% of all murder victims are men there is just no way that most are domestic violence related.  And as we can see by the FBI definition they aren't.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 18, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> They do when they come from gun nuts... yeah.



There aren't one set of facts and statistics for anti-gunners and another set for gun rights supporters; there are only _the_ facts and statistics.  You presented your pretend, faked "facts" and I disputed them and challenged you to support your claims . . .  You refused which can only be described as a failure to support your statements. 

I rebutted you claims with true, cited, linked FBI-UCR percentage breakdowns of murder victim / offender relationship that prove your "facts" are bullshit at best and blatant lies at worst.

Feel free to hold whatever dumbass unsupported _*OPINION*_ you want, just don't be such a douche and demand you have the privilege granted, of operating within your own set of anti-gun "facts" and "statistics".



JoeB131 said:


> You guys look at the carnage caused by your fetish and always find an excuse... "Oh, those are suicides, that doesn't count." "Oh, that person got in trouble with the law once, he doesn't count, either."
> 
> And it kind of works, unfortunately... the only time you guys have to really work for it is when a bunch of white people get shot up in a mall or a preschool.
> 
> The absolute last thing you want is for the 78% of us who don't own guns to say, "Why the fuck are we putting up with this?"



I have no interest debating your feelings or even trying to discuss your emotional tripe.  Feel free to spout all that nonsense you want and project whatever hostility and insecurity you need to, to prop-up your anti-intellectual positions . . .   Just stay away from lying, faking and misrepresenting facts and statistics.

I'll just always reserve the right to expose your lies and misrepresentations when you present your special double-secret decoder ring anti-gun "facts" for support of your bankrupt positions.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Only 1 in 5 murders involve an intimate partner
> 
> And unfortunately most of those victims are women.
> 
> But 80% of all murder victims are men there is just no way that most are domestic violence related. And as we can see by the FBI definition they aren't.



Yes, they include people who kill their children, people who kill their freeloading in laws over who ate the last strip of bacon, people who shoot their neighbors over the dog shitting on their lawn.   All made possible by guns!   The rest of the world simply doesn't have this problem.. because they limit who can have a gun. 



Abatis said:


> There aren't one set of facts and statistics for anti-gunners and another set for gun rights supporters; there are only _the_ facts and statistics. You presented your pretend, faked "facts" and I disputed them and challenged you to support your claims . . . You refused which can only be described as a failure to support your statements.



I've posted the links dozens of times... 

The problem with gun nutters is that you ALWAYS find a way to say, "those people don't count." 

Naw, we only count a Mass Shooting if five people DIE, not if two or more people are injured. 
We don't count suicides
we don't count murders if anyone involved had any kind of police record. 

And frankly, it works.   We all look at the 43,000 gun deaths a year and tolerate it, unless it's something really horrible like Sandy Hook


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, they include people who kill their children, people who kill their freeloading in laws over who ate the last strip of bacon, people who shoot their neighbors over the dog shitting on their lawn.   All made possible by guns!   The rest of the world simply doesn't have this problem.. because they limit who can have a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are proven wrong by definition.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You are proven wrong by definition.



I guess if you want to keep redefining it as "those folks don't count because XXX"  

Every lost life is a tragedy.  We lose too many to gun violence because the gun industry wants to make a profit selling a product YOU DON'T NEED.


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I guess if you want to keep redefining it as "those folks don't count because XXX"
> 
> Every lost life is a tragedy.  We lose too many to gun violence because the gun industry wants to make a profit selling a product YOU DON'T NEED.


No I am using the FBI definition.

Merely knowing someone does not make any crime "domestic" violence.

And it's not up to you to tell people what they need or don;t need.

The FACT is that only an infinitesimal percentage of people who legally own guns will commit murder.

Murder is in the most part an urban occurence.

And in fact even within city limits murder is concentrated invariably into the poorest areas where de facto segregation, poor schools, and an active drug trade are common.

Of course you don;t know this because you never lived in the shit end of a city.

I grew up on the streets of one of these hyper- violent areas and I know way more about crime, violence, the apathy of state and local governments and law enforcement.

You don;t know shit about it.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 19, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> I've posted the links dozens of times...



Uhhhhhh, remember, I'm the one that reviewed and reread and linked to damn near every goddamned time you used any permutation of your "83% . . ." or "domestic violence" lie or just the "most people killed" misrepresentation over the last year . . .

You didn't link anything, you couldn't because you do not rely on any actual sources; all you have is your wishful thinking and what you think you remember from opinion pieces on HuffPo or Axios or memes from Occupy Democrats.

*STOP LYING!*



JoeB131 said:


> The problem with gun nutters is that you ALWAYS find a way to say, "those people don't count."



I have never said that.  I consider every murder, every untimely and unjustified death a tragedy.  I just don't think it is proper to use those deaths to disingenuously advance a bankrupt political agenda to disarm American citizens that aren't the problem.



JoeB131 said:


> Naw, we only count a Mass Shooting if five people DIE,



*STOP LYING!* . . . 5 or more killed is Australia's and New Zealand's criteria, not the USA; the USA does not have any official criteria for "mass shooting" . . .



JoeB131 said:


> not if two or more people are injured.



The most often used criteria for "mass shootings" by DEMedia and auhoritarian politicians is the tally maintained by the *Gun Violence Archive*.  That organization uses a criteria of *4 or more shot or killed in one incident, not counting the offender*.  That loose definition is how we get to numbers that anti-gunners love throwing out there for shock value like the "more mass shootings than days, so far his year" headlines.

Anti-gunners ignore "mass shootings" tally's like Mother Jones', which only counts  "indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker" and "exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence."  That tighter criteria makes for a much lower total and much less opportunity for leftist histrionics and anti-gun propaganda.

How many fewer???  The Gun Violence Archive shows 693 "mass shooting" incidents for 2021, *Mother Jones* puts the number of "mass shooting" incidents in 2021 at 6 (six).

That's why anti-gunners *hate* Mother Jones . . .



JoeB131 said:


> We don't count suicides



Why would we?



JoeB131 said:


> we don't count murders if anyone involved had any kind of police record.



Dude, can you say *anything* about his topic without lying?



JoeB131 said:


> And frankly, it works.   We all look at the 43,000 gun deaths a year and tolerate it, unless it's something really horrible like Sandy Hook



More like if it is the direct product of leftist policy.

.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Uhhhhhh, remember, I'm the one that reviewed and reread and linked to damn near every goddamned time you used any permutation of your "83% . . ." or "domestic violence" lie or just the "most people killed" misrepresentation over the last year . . .
> 
> You didn't link anything, you couldn't because you do not rely on any actual sources; all you have is your wishful thinking and what you think you remember from opinion pieces on HuffPo or Axios or memes from Occupy Democrats.
> 
> ...




Yep, that is also why I use Mother Jones......Mother Jones is a rabidly anti-gun, left wing news source.........they use the FBI definition of mass public shooting...it used to be 4 or more killed, but as you can see from the low number, obama ordered them to reduce the number to 3 or more killed......If you want the link to that I can post it....


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 19, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Uhhhhhh, remember, I'm the one that reviewed and reread and linked to damn near every goddamned time you used any permutation of your "83%



Well, no, because I've said it more than the ten or so times you found... 

I don't do links unless I am interested.   I've posted the links a bunch of times... just not interested because you guys have changed your tact from "rationalizing" (they were all poor people, so they don't count) to "denial" (you can't provide a link every single time I ask for it). 



Abatis said:


> More like if it is the direct product of leftist policy.



If that were the case, Europe and Japan would have a LOT more crime than we do... as they have the kind of leftist societies American Liberals can only dream of.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yep, that is also why I use Mother Jones......Mother Jones is a rabidly anti-gun, left wing news source.........they use the FBI definition of mass public shooting...it used to be 4 or more killed, but as you can see from the low number, obama ordered them to reduce the number to 3 or more killed......If you want the link to that I can post it....



I also like to cite Mother Jones, if only because the criteria MJ uses aligns with what regular people consider a "mass shooting" to be -- a public, indiscriminate / random / spree attack where more than a couple people are killed.  As you point out, that number is _low_, too low for disingenuous anti-gunners to really capitalize on and cultivate and market for political effect.

Which is why, honestly, I have no problem using the Gun Violence Archive tally.  No doubt, 693 "mass shootings" in 2020 is shocking and depressing and we know the DEMedia and leftist politicians love to hold it up and wave it around in front of the cameras but really it exposes the utter rot in their _OVERALL_ agenda.

GVA's criteria used, "_4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time_" is a big net that catches a lot of incidents that blend into the NORMAL everyday violence that happens a few times a week where Democrats wield absolute power. These crimes just happen to ring the bell of, "_4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time_".

They are the drug corner drive-by's, the drug house rip squads, retaliation shootings at candlelight vigils for other shooting victims and just general mayhem of thug life. Most of these "mass shootings" are what so many shootings are, inner-city young guys shooting inner-city young guys over stupid shit that nobody but inner-city young guys care about . . . 

My position is, (and yours too I presume), there ain't any gun control law that will *EVER* slow or reverse that, it is a rot in culture that celebrates the criminal lifestyle and has zero respect for life . . . If it was just "guns" than the ridiculous disparity between the races would not be so stark . . .

In 2019, young Black males aged 15-29 were murdered at 17X the rate of White males aged 15-29.

That is shocking to me . . .  To put it another way, if young Black males aged 15-29 were murdered at the same rate of White males aged 15-29 in 2019, (80.31/100K vs. 4.63/100K), there would've been 257 instead of 4,450 young Black males being murdered in 2019, a 94.22% reduction.

It is preposterous to me that anti-gunners feel gun control will alter this condition.  The promotion of gun control exposes how conniving and dishonest they are, only employing crime as a pretext to sell and then enforce citizen disarmament.  The crime statistics and inner workings and utter failures of the justice system are really of no interest; they don't need to know any of that.  The most vocal anti-gunners get by just fine only demonstrating the most superficial knowledge and are quite content just misrepresenting and lying about the rest.

.Here's a mural of 2021's "mass shooting suspects:


----------



## Abatis (Jan 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Well, no, because I've said it more than the ten or so times you found...



And again I'll say, your wide variance with the wording and construction of the claim, demonstrates you really have no solid backing for it.  Anyone who uses / cites a particular stat _that often_ is usually very familiar with the source and have the precise terms ingrained in their memory and know exactly where to go to prove the claim.  That you fail all these steps proves you are misrepresenting / lying /pretending knowledge and familiarity you do not possess.



JoeB131 said:


> I don't do links unless I am interested.   I've posted the links a bunch of times...



In the 3 dozen times I have found you posting some variation of the claim of "most" and "83%", you have never posted any cite or quote from a trusted source.  You did post a pie chart with victim / offender relationship a few times, of course it had no attribution.


JoeB131 said:


> just not interested because you guys have changed your tact from "rationalizing" (they were all poor people, so they don't count)



And that is something someone would say when challenged to prove a simple and oft-repeated claim that they have been lying about for over a year . . .  



JoeB131 said:


> to "denial" (you can't provide a link every single time I ask for it).



I'm just asking for you to prove your claim with a respected source.  You have baldly claimed it dozens of times, compelling you to prove it isn't unfair and it definitely doesn't mean I'm in denial.  I owe no deference or respect to an claim that I know is bullshit and that you refuse to support.

Why should anyone be interested in what you have to say when you boldly admit you have no interest in supporting your statements?


----------



## Abatis (Jan 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> If that were the case, Europe and Japan would have a LOT more crime than we do... as they have the kind of leftist societies American Liberals can only dream of.



Wow.  You don't understand any of this do you?

Yes, nations with _longstanding_ (multiple generations if not multiple centuries) citizen disarmament practices do not experience large instances of gun crime today.  Those citizen disarmament objectives were not instituted as crime control measures, they were enacted for political control.

Whatever lower crime that's being realized in modern times is merely the ancillary benefit of cultivating a nation of compliant, obedient subjects.

Over "there" the political work is completed, the population accepts strict gun control without any justification required, the history of why it began is forgotten and a new public benefit purpose has been invented and written as new Gospel and has been exported and repackaged for the USA.

The fatal problem for your gun control goal in the USA is that the process is backwards from your exemplars.  They disarmed the people *first* to enforce government's absolute authority / superiority and the subjects obliged. 

In the USA, the task of implementing gun control here has to be _reverse engineered,_ predicated / camouflaged as crime control to ultimately achieve the leftist / statist political end.  In the USA, the people and their rights are superior and government's demands for power over the people must yield

Thankfully most Americans and our Courts denounce your collectivist, authoritarian subterfuge and will reject your attempts to restrict their rights.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2022)

Abatis said:


> I also like to cite Mother Jones, if only because the criteria MJ uses aligns with what regular people consider a "mass shooting" to be -- a public, indiscriminate / random / spree attack where more than a couple people are killed. As you point out, that number is _low_, too low for disingenuous anti-gunners to really capitalize on and cultivate and market for political effect.



Yup, if you keep trying to move the goalposts, you could probably get the ZERO.  



Abatis said:


> Which is why, honestly, I have no problem using the Gun Violence Archive tally. No doubt, 693 "mass shootings" in 2020 is shocking and depressing and we know the DEMedia and leftist politicians love to hold it up and wave it around in front of the cameras but really it exposes the utter rot in their _OVERALL_ agenda.



Actually ALL the gun numbers are depressing.  43,000 gun deaths, 16,000 gun homicides, 70,000 gun injuries, 400,000 gun crimes (and no, that doesn't include some black dude merely HAVING a gun, which is what you want to throw them into a jail cell we don't have), 213 BILLION in gun-related expenses, the completely loss of civil liberties in this country trying to accommodate a few fetishists.... 



Abatis said:


> Wow. You don't understand any of this do you?
> 
> Yes, nations with _longstanding_ (multiple generations if not multiple centuries) citizen disarmament practices do not experience large instances of gun crime today. Those citizen disarmament objectives were not instituted as crime control measures, they were enacted for political control.
> 
> Whatever lower crime that's being realized in modern times is merely the ancillary benefit of cultivating a nation of compliant, obedient subjects.



Uh, guy, get real.  The Europeans have more freedom than we do.   They don't have millions of people in prison or cops who shoot hundreds of suspects every year.  In Japan, women can go out alone at night in Tokyo, as opposed to America, where that's pretty much an open invitation to be raped.   

The difference is that those countries don't have a gun industry that openly encourages the carnage because they can profit off of it.  And, no, this is a recent phenomenon, not a century old thing.  Most of history, most Americans didn't own guns and didn't need them.   The NRA was founded because a Union General was horrified by how little Americans knew about guns and marksmanship.   

As late as the 1960's, the NRA and Sensible Republicans were passing common sense gun laws.  




*Silly Darkie, "Rights" are for White People. *

So what happened was that in the 1970's, the crazies hijacked the NRA, and the gun industry flooded our streets with cheaper, more deadly guns.  When the CDC showed that gun proliferation WAS the problem, Congress passed the Dickey Act to keep the CDC from studying gun violence.  When the victims of the DC Snipers successfully sued the gun sellers and makers, Congress passed a law exempting them from civil liability.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, if you keep trying to move the goalposts, you could probably get the ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Europeans murdered 15 million unarmed, innocent men, women and children....the Japanese murdered over 3 million unarmed, innocent, men, women and children.....

That is what gun control created.....more deaths in 6 years than 87 years of gun murder in the U.S.....innocent people murdered by their government, versus criminals murdering other criminals with guns...

330 million Americans

600 million guns in the U.S.

Well over 21.5 million Americans can carry guns legally for self defense in public...

Gun murder.....which means criminals murdering other criminals...70-80% of the victims are the actual criminals, and of the rest the vast majority are associated with the criminals....friends, family, associates.....

10,258 gun murders in the U.S. in 2019 before the democrats war on police took full effect......









						Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
					





					ucr.fbi.gov
				





Fatal gun accidents......with over 21.5 million Americans actually carrying guns in public for self defense....legally....

486





__





						Fatal Injury and Violence Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC
					

WISQARS fatal injury data shows the number of injury deaths and death rates by intent and mechanism. The fatal injury applications include Fatal Injury Reports, Leading Causes of Death, Cost of Injury Reports, and Fatal Injury Data Visualization.




					www.cdc.gov
				




Gun suicide...which do not count since any other method would achieve the same goal...

23,941....

.and Japan, South Korea, China, Scotland and many other European countries have higher rates of suicide, and extreme gun control...





__





						WISQARS Fatal Injury Reports
					





					wisqars.cdc.gov
				




*Then we have the benefits of guns...*

15 million innocent men, women and children, 3 million innocent men, women and children not murdered by their governments....





__





						NAZI GENOCIDE AND MASS MURDER
					





					hawaii.edu
				




According to the Centers for Disease Control....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, mass public shootings, stabbings and beatings......

The Dept. of Justice showed the number to be 1.5 million times a year.....

Lives saved....based on research?  By law abiding gun owners using guns to stop criminals?



Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct





* that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—*



Money saved from people not being beaten, raped, murdered, robbed?.......





*So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.*

*Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.*
*
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). 


But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.

When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”

Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
*
*So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.*


Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 20, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, if you keep trying to move the goalposts, you could probably get the ZERO.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Europeans are not more free than we are and they are becoming less free by the day........sing the song "Kung Fu Fighting," and then get ready to be arrested........


----------



## JoeB131 (Jan 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Europeans murdered 15 million unarmed, innocent men, women and children....the Japanese murdered over 3 million unarmed, innocent, men, women and children.....



Uh, that's called War...  My Native American Ancestors would like to have a word...  



2aguy said:


> The Europeans are not more free than we are and they are becoming less free by the day........sing the song "Kung Fu Fighting," and then get ready to be arrested........


Well, that's a pretty stupid song... sooo 

But seriously.

Germany only locks up 75,000 people.  The UK 78,000 people...  Japan 69,000

The US locks up 2 million people.   









						Countries Compared by Crime > Prisoners. International Statistics at NationMaster.com
					

Total persons incarcerated



					www.nationmaster.com


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A study shows that all of the gun control laws, on top of all the other gun control laws, piled on top of the other gun control laws in Massachusetts......had no impact on their gun crime rates.....
> 
> You know, since criminals don't obey gun laws.....
> 
> ...


America would have to have buy back schemes on gins that wouldn't comply with new gun regulations and authorities would have to apply procedures robustly. On top of that, you need heavy fines and jail sentences for those who breach regs. And it'll take decades to filter through because of the number of gun nuts you have.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 20, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The Europeans are not more free than we are and they are becoming less free by the day........sing the song "Kung Fu Fighting," and then get ready to be arrested........


We can cross the road where we want. You free Americans have to be told by lit up signs where you can cross.

You're so free, America incarcerates more of it:s population than any other country.

I think you need to grab a dictionary, you are thick as fuck.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 21, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> America would have to have buy back schemes on gins that wouldn't comply with new gun regulations and authorities would have to apply procedures robustly. On top of that, you need heavy fines and jail sentences for those who breach regs. And it'll take decades to filter through because of the number of gun nuts you have.




Moron....we have heavy fines and penalties...the democrat party simply releases the most violent, known, repeat gun offenders over and over again............you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 21, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, that's called War...  My Native American Ancestors would like to have a word...
> 
> 
> Well, that's a pretty stupid song... sooo
> ...




It doesn't matter how many people we lock up you idiot.......the democrat party keeps releasing the criminals who do almost all of t he shootings..........so locking them up temporarily isn't locking them up, you doofus.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 21, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Moron....we have heavy fines and penalties...the democrat party simply releases the most violent, known, repeat gun offenders over and over again............you idiot.


Not pussy fines that you're thinking of, real heavy fines, many thousands, many years in jail.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Not pussy fines that you're thinking of, real heavy fines, many thousands, many years in jail.




Moron.......we have heavy fines...the democrat party is simply releasing repeat gun offenders without bail....they are arrested and out in less than 48 hours.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 22, 2022)

JoeB131 said:


> Yup, if you keep trying to move the goalposts, you could probably get the ZERO.



????  Who's moving goalposts?  Who's trying to minimize the numbers?  I explained the single rare reason why I might use the Mother Jones tally and why I prefer using the higher, much higher, Gun Violence Archive tally which was 693 "mass shootings" last year.

Why did you ignore my very easy to understand statement and instead invent this straw man, this opposite reality? 

Why must you always misrepresent and lie?




JoeB131 said:


> Actually ALL the gun numbers are depressing.  43,000 gun deaths, 16,000 gun homicides, 70,000 gun injuries,



True but just because lumping them all together works for you, doesn't mean that blanket "gun control" policy change (especially directed at people who aren't criminals) will address the different dynamics and reduce those crimes.  You think you are being insightful and compelling, all you are showing is your disingenuousness and pathological partisan myopia.



JoeB131 said:


> 400,000 gun crimes (and no, that doesn't include some black dude merely HAVING a gun, which is what you want to throw them into a jail cell we don't have),



I'm for equal application of the law, prosecuting all illegal gun use without regard for the race of the offender . . .




JoeB131 said:


> 213 BILLION in gun-related expenses, the completely loss of civil liberties in this country trying to accommodate a few fetishists....



The various governments have wide, near plenary powers to investigate, prosecute and punish criminals for crimes committed.  Government has no express power to restrict the rights of the citizen to acquire, possess and use arms of a type in common use for lawful purpose.



JoeB131 said:


> Uh, guy, get real.  The Europeans have more freedom than we do.



Why don't you "get real" and for once address what I write?



JoeB131 said:


> As late as the 1960's, the NRA and Sensible Republicans were passing common sense gun laws.



Well, the USA went quite a long time with no federal gun laws.  In 1934 they wrote a gun law in the tax code.  They knew they couldn't outright "ban" *any* gun which is why they invented taxing the transfer of machine guns and sawed off shotguns between citizens.  This law required all owners to buy a stamp to prove the $200 tax was paid. 

Congressional power to tax is rarely challenged and even more rarely invalidated but the NFA-34 was essentially held to be unenforceable under the 5th Amendment in _Haynes v. United States_, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).  The NFA-34 had to be saved and the GCA-68 did that (and much much more) by Congress claiming wide authority to regulate guns under the commerce clause.

The GCA-68 woke up gun owners to the degree the federal government was willing to impact regular gun owners and the gun rights movement was birthed . . . As you note in your typical disingenuous, bullshit spewing manner:




JoeB131 said:


> So what happened was that in the 1970's, the crazies hijacked the NRA, and the gun industry flooded our streets with cheaper, more deadly guns.



Your insane hyperbole never disappoints!



JoeB131 said:


> When the CDC showed that gun proliferation WAS the problem, Congress passed the Dickey Act to keep the CDC from studying gun violence.



And there it is!  Every post from you has the requisite blatant lie . . .



JoeB131 said:


> When the victims of the DC Snipers successfully sued the gun sellers and makers, Congress passed a law exempting them from civil liability.



And of course, a disingenuous anti-gunner supports disingenuous lawsuits and their intent to abuse the courts to do what they can not legislatively.

.


----------

