Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This^^^^^^^^^Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.
The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.
You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
Once again, you've proven you will believe any piece of propaganda published with those with a financial interest in promoting guns.
Yes I didnt want a gun to protect myself.
The propaganda of the financial interest in promoting guns pushed me to break out my debit card.
You should see what the financial interest in promoting high quality optics pushed me to buy.
So you admit to being easily manipulated by consumerism?
This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
400,000,000 guns in homes versus the numbers killed do not reconcile.
This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
400,000,000 guns in homes versus the numbers killed do not reconcile.
Just calling something a lie doesn't prove anything, particularly when it's the word of a gun nut.
Source: FIREARMS TUTORIAL
Can you even make it through a gun show without shooting yourselves?
MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."
This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3
The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
That's a nice unbiased study "he estimates." I don't know of one incident in my whole life of someone protecting themselves or other by having a gun. I'm not talking about anecdotal cases that make it into the nation's news, I'm talking about an actual case in the areas I've lived in.
What burglar in his right mind is going to try to go through a door with a growling English Masiff and Lab/Boxer mix on the other side? Why wouldn't he just go somewhere without dogs?
Without having a gun in the house, I have zero chance of a child or adult ever finding it and hurting themselves or others. I still have my Ka-Bar.
Oh.... yeah..... those "statistics"..... Have you taken the time to actually study how their compilations were done? How they "assessed" their data, lumping entire categories together that provide a very skewed view? The devil is in the details which is why I rely on the FBI stats. At least half of all firearm related deaths are due to gang related violence and the vast majority of gang owned firearms were not legally purchased.
Yes, I have taken the time to read this research. At the moment, that makes one of us.
Read the research with an open mind, and get back to me when you're done. Not before.
Why anyone would attack research he hadn't even looked at it beyond me.
keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of a family member being hurt much more than it increases the chance of you killing a bad guy.
What's with the right-wing idiots screwing up all these threads by editing the /quote? Can't you idiots fix what you post? I've been on forums where you can tell it's deliberately done.
What's with the right-wing idiots screwing up all these threads by editing the /quote? Can't you idiots fix what you post? I've been on forums where you can tell it's deliberately done.
/ quote : Go suck start a shotgun.
aBripat -
True or false...
In the US, a mass shooting occurs every 5.9 days.
In the US, 87 people die every day of gun shot wounds.
Americans are twenty times more likely to be killed with a gun than a citizen of any other major developed nation.
I suppose we should look at the 'accidents'.
The last one was a stupid dealer who was messing with a loaded gun. He didn't check it or anything sane, just shot himself.
Police found a second loaded gun on his table. What an idiot.
This one has some irony.
Raleigh, North Carolina after a gun accidentally discharged and shot three people at the shows safety check-in booth
Truth SeekerTwo similar incidents occurred at entirely separate gun shows in the Midwest, one in the Cleveland suburb of Medina, Ohio and the other at the state fairgrounds in Indianapolis, Indiana. In Ohio, the local ABC affiliate reports that one individual was brought to a hospital by EMS, and in Indiana Channel 8 WISH says that an individual shot himself in the hand while trying to reload his gun in the show parking lot.
That isn't to say all right wing, bloody idiot gun owners with tiny penises are too stupid to handle a gun but it seems many are.
The thought of opposing a law that restricts criminals and the mentally ill getting hold of guns suggests the opposing group are insane.
What's with the right-wing idiots screwing up all these threads by editing the /quote? Can't you idiots fix what you post? I've been on forums where you can tell it's deliberately done.
/ quote : Go suck start a shotgun.
You fucking right-wing scum have to act like little children, don't you?
MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."
This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
Gross errors in this and similar "studies"--with even greater claimed ratios of harm to good--include: the assumption that a gun hasn't been used for protection unless an assailant dies; no distinction is made between handgun and long gun deaths; all accidental firearm fatalities were counted whether the deceased was part of the "family" or not; all accidents were counted whether they occurred in the home or not, while self-defense outside the home was excluded; almost half the self-defense uses of guns in the home were excluded on the grounds that the criminal intruder killed may not have been a total stranger to the home defender; suicides were sometimes counted and some self-defense shootings misclassified. Cleveland's experience with crime and accidents during the study period was atypical of the nation as a whole and of Cleveland since the mid-1970s. Moreover, in a later study, the same researchers noted that roughly 10% of killings by civilians are justifiable homicides. 3
The "guns in the home" myth has been repeated time and again by the media, and anti-gun academics continue to build on it. In 1993, Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University and a number of colleagues presented a study that claimed to show that a home with a gun was much more likely to experience a homicide.4 However, Dr. Kellermann selected for his study only homes where homicides had taken place--ignoring the millions of homes with firearms where no harm is done--and a control group that was not representative of American households. By only looking at homes where homicides had occurred and failing to control for more pertinent variables, such as prior criminal record or histories of violence, Kellermann et al. skewed the results of this study. Prof. Kleck wrote that with the methodology used by Kellermann, one could prove that since diabetics are much more likely to possess insulin than non-diabetics, possession of insulin is a risk factor for diabetes. Even Dr. Kellermann admitted this in his study: "It is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide." Law Professor Daniel D. Polsby went further, "Indeed the point is stronger than that: 'reverse causation' may account for most of the association between gun ownership and homicide. Kellermann's data simply do not allow one to draw any conclusion."5
Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
2 Rushforth, et al., "Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, " 100 American Journal of Epidemiology 499 (1975).
3 Rushforth, et al., "Violent Death in a Metropolitan County," 297 New England Journal of Medicine 531, 533 (1977).
4 Kellermann, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine 467 (1993).
5 Polsby, "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Monthly, March 1994.
6 Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).
7 Kleck, interview, Orange County Register,Sept. 19, 1993.
TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL
That's a nice unbiased study "he estimates." I don't know of one incident in my whole life of someone protecting themselves or other by having a gun. I'm not talking about anecdotal cases that make it into the nation's news, I'm talking about an actual case in the areas I've lived in.
What burglar in his right mind is going to try to go through a door with a growling English Masiff and Lab/Boxer mix on the other side? Why wouldn't he just go somewhere without dogs?
Without having a gun in the house, I have zero chance of a child or adult ever finding it and hurting themselves or others. I still have my Ka-Bar.
OH sure there is 0 chance of a child or adult ever finding a gun if's it's not there, but what do you do if someone introduces a gun into the house that may have entered uninvited?
Jacksonville man killed in targeted home invasion; children were in the apartment | jacksonville.com
This^^^^^^^^^
No I don't want a gun to defend myself I want to be a victim like the liberals want to be.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
400,000,000 guns in homes versus the numbers killed do not reconcile.
They can't get in my yard without my dogs growling.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
400,000,000 guns in homes versus the numbers killed do not reconcile.
Isn't that kind of like saying, "Well, of the 28,000 flights in the air on 9-11-2001, 27996 of them DID NOT crash into buildings, so I'm not sure why you want to take all these precautions now!"
They can't get in my yard without my dogs growling.
A ball peen hammer and a meat treat = Sleepy puppy
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
400,000,000 guns in homes versus the numbers killed do not reconcile.
FOUR HUNDRED MILLION GUNS?
Where did THIS figure come from?
