Do Not Be Without a Gun

[protectionist]

Guns are not magic crime repellants.

Correct. They are REAL crime repellants, more than anything else.

 

[miketx]

How many shot dead criminals were interviewed for this?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Everyone is out to get you. Live in fear of everything and everyone.

Racists everywhere!

 

[occupied]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Yeah, they are stupid. My wifes high school friend is so ignorant on guns It's scary. She thinks guns just go off by themselves.

There is a lot of fear of guns that liberals typically have . Most of them are not in occupations where guns are carried, or have any military background.

As such, they are easy prey for anti-gun do-gooders, who saturate them with anti-gun propaganda.

The word "responsible gun ownership" gets used a lot when we all know that not everyone is responsible. It follows that not everyone should have a gun. It can be argued that a person who does not own a gun is in some way practicing responsible gun ownership by admitting to themselves that they shouldn't have one for whatever reason.

 

[miketx]

 

[miketx]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Yeah, they are stupid. My wifes high school friend is so ignorant on guns It's scary. She thinks guns just go off by themselves.

There is a lot of fear of guns that liberals typically have . Most of them are not in occupations where guns are carried, or have any military background.

As such, they are easy prey for anti-gun do-gooders, who saturate them with anti-gun propaganda.

The word "responsible gun ownership" gets used a lot when we all know that not everyone is responsible. It follows that not everyone should have a gun. It can be argued that a person who does not own a gun is in some way practicing responsible gun ownership by admitting to themselves that they shouldn't have one for whatever reason.

Whenever I read some of these posts the word "liar" gets used a lot.

 

[bripat9643]

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

That study has been debunked 10,000 times.

 

[protectionist]

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a NationaStudy

HA ha ha. Oh yes, the illustrious studies. What would any thread espousing a conservative view, be without the inevitable study, thrown in to try to dislodge the OP ?

2 things come to mind:

1. Studies posted by liberals are invariably from liberal sources friendly to their views, heavily biased, and set up subjectively to arrive at their desired conclusion.

2. I have my own "study" which is as good as any that can be cited. For 65 years, I have seen gun owners with guns at home. I have seen thousands of them, in 18 states of the USA. Over all this, I have NEVER seen an single accident, death in any way in the home, other than self-defense against crime ,- which is a GOOD thing, that this OP is advocating.

 

[protectionist]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Everyone is out to get you. Live in fear of everything and everyone.

Better that than being 100% fearLESS, and then 100% DEAD.

 

[occupied]

There is far more to the art of defense than simply having a weapon. I've had guns all my life and never needed one to use against an attacker. I can think of a few times things would have went really bad if I had a gun in my hand. Some drunk bastard would be dead instead of just knocked the fuck out. Just having a gun is not the final answer to anything.

It's amazing you're alive. When the next attacker comes at you (possibly with a weapon,), maybe you won't be.

One type of stakes that you shouldn't gamble with is your life.

I don't carry guns to parties and bars. All of my attacks were at a place where there was a lot of alcohol being consumed. It's probably best that blackout drunks not be armed. I'm also a rather large bearded biker looking guy. People really don't mess with me no matter where I am.

 

[2aguy]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

They lived the life the anti-gunners tell them exists....where no one they know has ever been robbed, beaten, raped or murdered so, therefore, rape, robbery, and murder can never happen to them........

 

[2aguy]

Guns are not magic crime repellants.

No one says they are....but the sure way to be raped, murdered or robbed is to be completely unarmed and helpless when a rapist, robber or murderer shows up at your home...

 

[Blues Man]

You are supposed to call 911 and wait for a government paid person with a gun to come and save you.

All well and good but for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

Guns are not magic crime repellants.

Neither are the police

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[occupied]

There is far more to the art of defense than simply having a weapon. I've had guns all my life and never needed one to use against an attacker. I can think of a few times things would have went really bad if I had a gun in my hand. Some drunk bastard would be dead instead of just knocked the fuck out. Just having a gun is not the final answer to anything.

It's amazing you're alive. When the next attacker comes at you (possibly with a weapon,), maybe you won't be.

One type of stakes that you shouldn't gamble with is your life.

Chances are he's a liar, and of course all progressive scum ignore old people who can't fight or run.

All I am saying is that there is more to protecting yourself than just having a gun. Good situational awareness is the key to security. Guns only serve a rightful means of security when all other security precautions prove inadequate.

 

[protectionist]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Yeah, they are stupid. My wifes high school friend is so ignorant on guns It's scary. She thinks guns just go off by themselves.

There is a lot of fear of guns that liberals typically have . Most of them are not in occupations where guns are carried, or have any military background.

As such, they are easy prey for anti-gun do-gooders, who saturate them with anti-gun propaganda.

The word "responsible gun ownership" gets used a lot when we all know that not everyone is responsible. It follows that not everyone should have a gun. It can be argued that a person who does not own a gun is in some way practicing responsible gun ownership by admitting to themselves that they shouldn't have one for whatever reason.

I doubt that anyone would argue with this. Those people who are not responsible enough to have a gun (at least in their home) however, might be advised to seek counseling to better themselves.

 

[Blues Man]

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

The second anyone starts saying guns are responsible for suicide they reveal they and their so called study are full of shit



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

What that study fails to point out, is that those who commit suicide will do so without a gun....as the higher rates of suicide in Japan, China and South Korea show.......and they also lie when they try to say that it is the gun, and not the individual in the home that causes the death. When there is a murder in the home, the majority of the time the individual has a history of crime, drug addiction or alcohol abuse....... the gun is not the factor, the history of the individual is.....this is an old trick of anti-gunners in the "health" fields.....

The page also shows they cite Kellerman...which proves they are lying......

Kellerman is the original liar in this field.....his research was questioned, and he had to change his numbers once it was shown he was wrong, and even then, he used the same faulty methods...

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

In one of the most well-known public health studies on firearms, Kellermann’s “case sample” consists of 444 homicides that occurred in homes. His control group had 388 individuals who lived near the deceased victims and were of the same sex, race, and age range. After learning about the homicide victims and control subjects—whether they owned a gun, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc.—these authors attempted to see if the probability of a homicide correlated with gun ownership.

Amazingly these studies assume that if someone died from a gun shot, and a gun was owned in the home, that it was the gun in the home that killed that person. The paper is clearly misleading, as it fails to report that in only 8 of these 444 homicide cases was the gun that had been kept in the home the murder weapon.

Moreover, the number of criminals stopped with a gun is much higher than the number killed in defensive gun uses. In fact, the attacker is killed in fewer than 1 out of every 1,000 defensive gun uses. Fix either of these data errors and the results are reversed.



The Fallacy of "43 to 1"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Blues Man]

The crime channels have become quite popular on TV lately. The many shows they present, show people being beaten, raped, and in many cases killed.

Some of these attacks are shown in disturbing live footage. Others show victims, often women with scarred faces, telling their tales of horror.

The question that begs to be answered is why are these people leaving themselves unarmed and vulnerable ? Anyone who can afford to buy a gun, training, and a license, should do so, to protect themselves and their families.

To not own a gun is an irresponsible and dangerous negligence. Except in a few goofball cities like New York, it is legal to own a pistol being kept in the home, car, or place of business (even without a license).

How sad that people, even women with children, leave themselves vulnerable to the wide assortment of subhuman lowlifes, who abuse them as if it were normal activity.

Everyone is out to get you. Live in fear of everything and everyone.

Like you live in fear of law abiding gun owners

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[2aguy]

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

And more on the Kellerman research...and how it is wrong....

His first research, the much quoted 43% more likely to die from guns in your own home....had to be changed....he later changed the number to 2.7%....and he was still using faulty techniques...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7;

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


Nine Myths Of Gun Control

Myth #6 "A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder"

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one's family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann's long discredited claim: "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder." [17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann's burglar or rapist body count.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. [3]

Any study, such as Kellermann' "43 times" fallacy, that only counts bodies will expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand fold.

Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. [2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to "2.7 times," [18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between "cause" and "effect." His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks "cause" obesity.


Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse .


From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes

Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn't even believe his own studies.


-----


Public Health and Gun Control: A Review



Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t.

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8

In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5

Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns.

Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count.

Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000."5

In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology.

He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example,

53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested,

31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and

17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required.
Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability.

In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered.

Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.

All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5

It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.

Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6