Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[jon_berzerk]

Actually I believe the last estimate was that 2 million times a year someone either uses or shows a weapon to stop a crime. Most times just showing it prevents the act.

That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.

The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.

It almost never fucking happens.

So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?

Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.

Explain THAT, Joe!

i dont know about that

i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year

in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person

 

[JoeB131]

[

And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?

Not without an investment of TRILLIONS infrastructure to provide public transportation to get us all everywhere we'd want to go, along with the hundreds of millions in lost productivity and lost industry.

We need cars. We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.

We don't need guns. We really don't. Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.

 

[JoeB131]

That estimate came from the NRA, and like anything else the National Rampage Association says, it's bullshit.

The real number is 200. That's how many justifiable homicides were recorded by the FBI by civilians against criminals.

It almost never fucking happens.

So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?

Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.

Explain THAT, Joe!

i dont know about that

i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year

in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person

They are all horseshit stories.

Don't believe a one of them.

 

[JoeB131]

How is hunting sadistic? Not that it's relevant because the argument that is down the drain is that anyone needs a reason that YOU find valid to own a gun.

Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating? Yeah. Sadistic.

Sorry. You don't need a gun. You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.

The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?

Probably neither, since you were in his territory...

But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?

We need cars. We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.

We don't need guns. We really don't. Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.

Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And we could all agree for the sake of the 35,000 people that die each year we make the sacrifice to not use automobiles. They are not a necessity. The reality is life would go on to without cars. The reality is you don't want them banned because it would inconvenience. The deaths they are involved in are okay to you because having to do without it would be too much of an inconvenience. Really? It's okay that 35,000 people a year die so you don't have to be inconvenienced?

We need cars. We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.

We don't need guns. We really don't. Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.

Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.

32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries are not a "good thing".

Wheeling dead children out of schools because someone went on a rampage after buying a gun even though he was batshit crazy is not a "good thing".


you have a very strange notion of what a "Good thing" is. You probably need to put down the video-game controller and get into the real world.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So even at that, roughly 3 times as many that die in mass shootings. You want to write law based on that, don't you?

Come on now! A grossly understated, unsupported number is statistically irrelevant, but 70 or so people/year, dying in mass shootings warrants a ban on scary black guns and 10 round and bigger magazines.

Explain THAT, Joe!

i dont know about that

i have 973 articles where a gun was used in self defense this year

in many instances the gun owner defended more then one person

They are all horseshit stories.

Don't believe a one of them.

You know what that reminds me of?

"Unfortunately you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all of our problems. Some of these same voices do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave and creative and unique experiment in self rule is somehow just a sham with which we can't be trusted."

- President Barack H. Obama, in a commencement speech to graduating class of Ohio State University, May 5, 2013

 

[TemplarKormac]

We need cars. We really do. Most industrialized nations have them.

We don't need guns. We really don't. Most industrialized nations either ban them or severely limit who can own them.

Really? Good thing we aren't like "most industrialized nations" yet. Perhaps you should move to one of them.

32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries are not a "good thing".

Wheeling dead children out of schools because someone went on a rampage after buying a gun even though he was batshit crazy is not a "good thing".


you have a very strange notion of what a "Good thing" is. You probably need to put down the video-game controller and get into the real world.

Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I am in the real world, where the hell are you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stalking and murdering an animal you may have no intention of eating? Yeah. Sadistic.

Sorry. You don't need a gun. You might WANT a gun, but no one needs to starve because they can't go out and shoot an animal.

The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?

Probably neither, since you were in his territory...

But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.

Project much?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I am in the real world, where the hell are you?

I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.

Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest. So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.

This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.

 

[JoeB131]

The last thing I shot that I didn't eat was a water moccasin. Hmm was that hunting or self defense?

Probably neither, since you were in his territory...

But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.

Project much?

No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I am in the real world, where the hell are you?

I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.

Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest. So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.

This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.

No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion.

You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, or DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard.

You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns. How dare you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Probably neither, since you were in his territory...

But I dont talk to you because you are like a crazy person.

Project much?

No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....

Oh? So you call him crazy when you can't rebut his arguments? How childish.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Spare me your self righteousness. If you truly care about children, you would care for them all, not just the ones who have already been born. How callous. I am in the real world, where the hell are you?

I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.

Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest. So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.

This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.

No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion.

You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard.

You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns.

Yes, when it's in "a womb", the size of a kidney bean, and wouldn't survive five minutes outside the womb, it's not a "baby" or a "Child". An Egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree.

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions. Comprehensive sex education free of religous bullshit. Mandetory family and medical leave- PAID. Universal health care. All those industrialized nations do this, and they have abortion rates that are half of what ours is.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for you to give up your firearms.

The main one being there is no good reason for you to have one. 32,000 gun deaths and 79,000 gun injuries every year are plenty of good reasons. And a lot of those are kids. real kids, not imaginary ones the size of a Kidney bean.

 

[JoeB131]

Project much?

No, Ernie is such a crazy person I had to put him on ignore so he'd stop sending me unwanted PM's....

Oh? So you call him crazy when you can't rebut his arguments? How childish.

No, I call him a crazy person because he's a crazy person. I really can't go into more detail than that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm in the real world where men should just shut the fuck up about abortion and pregnancy because we don't know what we are talking about.

Fetuses aren't babies, and there is no way you are EVER going to get a woman to carry a pregnancy to term she doesn't want short of putting her under house arrest. So unless you are going to have the NSA chip and monitor all those EPTs, you really need to shut up.

This thread is about gun control. If you want me to whup your sorry ass on the subject of abortion for the 49th time, start a thread on that.

No, we are talking about it here. You wont run away and you won't derail this discussion.

You seem to care for children so much, how come the ones in the womb don't count? Eh? What's that? They're clumps of flesh? Well that's interesting, I seem to notice how they only matter to you either DEAD in the womb, DEAD as a means to push a gun control agenda. Ohh they need their food stamps! You sick bastard.

You haven't given any legitimate reasons why people should give up their firearms. Except to deign to depths thought unimaginable, by using innocent children as political pawns.

Yes, when it's in "a womb", the size of a kidney bean, and wouldn't survive five minutes outside the womb, it's not a "baby" or a "Child". An Egg is not a chicken, an acorn is not a tree.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons for you to give up your firearms.

I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:

Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? We all know what happens to a baby that isn't fully developed. The answer? No. There is the flaw of your argument. Neither are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is an unborn child, the other is an already born child. So, is that toddler just "a clump of flesh?" Your logic is way off the mark.

"There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:

Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? There is the flaw of your argument. Neither are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is a human fetus, the other is an already born child. Your logic is way off the mark.

The problem with the "a baby would starve" is that you would actually have to make a concerted effort to starve a baby. Anyone could feed it because it's organs are capable of sustaining it.

As opposed to a fetus prior to 20 weeks, which has NEVER survived outside the womb, not once.

"There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.

32,000 gun deaths.
79,000 gun injuries.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[q

I deleted your bloviating to cut to the chase:

Such flawed logic. So, if you left a toddler alone with no sustenance, can he/she survive? There is the flaw of your argument. Neither are capable of living outside of the womb on their own, because they are both incapable of acquiring nourishment. But one is a human fetus, the other is an already born child. Your logic is way off the mark.

The problem with the "a baby would starve" is that you would actually have to make a concerted effort to starve a baby. Anyone could feed it because it's organs are capable of sustaining it.

As opposed to a fetus prior to 20 weeks, which has NEVER survived outside the womb, not once.

"There are a lot of legitimate reasons to give up your firearms." Name them, without reciting those already debunked statistics of yours.

32,000 gun deaths.
79,000 gun injuries.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.

Done.

Sorry, you fail on every count. Your logic is if it can't survive outside the womb that it isn't human. What about the toddler? You and I both know the toddler could not survive on his or her own without assistance from the parent. Is this toddler a not a human being?

And you recited those outdated statistics. Can you honestly not come up with a legitimate reason for stripping people of their 2nd Amendment rights? You cite a 27 year old report in the New England Journal of Medicine, namely “Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home.” Interestingly enough, the study only accounted for cases of self-defense with firearms in which the criminal was killed. If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data. 1986 Joe. Nineteen Eighty Six. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!

Do you see any pundits using this study to push any of their gun control agenda? No, because even they aren't that stupid. I know you are an acolyte of Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann. He was the founding chairman of the department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University in Atlanta, he helped author that sad report on gun violence. All he did was study gun violence in one city, Seattle, for six years. The funny part was that the government had been funding his research. But in 1993 he tried covering for himself, by conducting similar studies Cleveland, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Seattle over five years, that again miserably. It led to his research being scrapped by the CDC in 1996. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

You're toast. Get out. You have been resoundingly defeated.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Sorry, you fail on every count. Your logic is if it can't survive outside the womb that it isn't human. What about the toddler? You and I both know the toddler could not survive on his or her own without assistance from the parent. Is this toddler a not a human being?

That's not true. Toddlers are taken away from parents EVERY DAY when they prove unfit. Most parents actually leave their children at this thing called "Day Care" when they go to something called "a Job" (Seriously, you should look into getting one of those!) And guess what, those children are able to survive quite some time without "a parent". They have to be assisted by someone, but usually, it's someone who WANTED to assist them.

What you want is to force someone to keep something that isn't viable outside their body inside their body, whether they want it or not.

And you recited those outdated statistics. You show you cannot honestly come up with a legitimate reason for stripping people of their 2nd Amendment rights. You cite a 27 year old report in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home.” Interestingly enough, the study only accounted for cases of self-defense with firearms in which the criminal was killed. .

The reason we only have the 27 year old study was because right after Kellerman came out with his study, the National Rampage Association went to Congress and told them to never fund a gun-injury study, even again.

It would be kind of like if we had a study that suggested cigarettes caused cancer, and Philip-Morris went to Congress and banned all cancer studies.

If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data 1986 Joe. Nineteen Eighty Six. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!

Oh, I take you for the kind of fool who lives at home, can't hold down a job, and listens to Hate Radio all day and thinks badly of those "Welfare people" he's really no better than. That's the kind of fool I take you for.

But to the point, the Kellerman study ONLY studied death.

It didn't count all the times some wife-beater pulled out the gun and threatened to shoot the family dog, either.

It counted DEATH. For every 1 bad guy killed, there were 39 suicides, 3 domestic murders and 1 accident.

OOOOOPS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the bad guy was wounded, held at gunpoint for police or ran away, it was not included in the data 1986 Joe. Nineteen Eighty Six. What kind of fool do you take me for? That had to be one of the more seriously flawed reports on gun violence in recent memory!

Oh, I take you for the kind of fool who lives at home, can't hold down a job, and listens to Hate Radio all day and thinks badly of those "Welfare people" he's really no better than. That's the kind of fool I take you for.

But to the point, the Kellerman study ONLY studied death.

It didn't count all the times some wife-beater pulled out the gun and threatened to shoot the family dog, either.

It counted DEATH. For every 1 bad guy killed, there were 39 suicides, 3 domestic murders and 1 accident.

OOOOOPS.

Nope. His study was so black and white, there were many holes poked into it. Author Henry E. Schaefer M.D. published a rebuttal paper to Kellerman’s 1993 report that same year, in which Schaefer notes several flaws, starting with Kellerman's use of the case control method (CCM) of analysis. It was later rebutted by the likes of J. Neil Schuman, Criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates and others. Also, the Kellermann et al paper was never peer reviewed. When asked to proved the raw numbers that supposedly backed up his claim, he refused, and still to this day has refused to.

Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck found that no method of gun control had any impact on the number of suicides. Controlling guns did somewhat temper suicide through use of a gun, but not the overall suicide rate. The Kellerman study was still flawed, even after Kellerman backed away from his 43 times figure and concluded that a person who owned a gun was now "2.7 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide than one who did not."

The Kellerman, et al (1993) study in the NEJM attempts to use the case-control method (CCM) to show that gun ownership increases homicide in the home. The limitations of the CCM, and serious flaws in the study methodology, result in invalidation of the study's conclusions.

The CCM has a number of limitations in what it can accomplish, and has a number of conditions (assumptions) which must be satisfied for it to be able to satisfactorily accomplish even the limited goals for which it is suitable. The biggest limitation is that the CCM can't demonstrate causation. The CCM finds 'associations' between studied factors and the 'outcome' which defines the 'cases'. These 'associations' may suggest that there is a causal relationship, and may then be used to justify a study of causal relationships, but it is incorrect to jump from the discovery of an association to a conclusion of causation. Other weak points in the CCM have to do with susceptibility to biases in the selection of the cases, and with confounding factors which can affect the choice of the controls. These can easily lead to spurious associations when there actually are none, or to associations which are reversed in direction from what actually exists.

The Kellerman, et al (1993) study has been widely quoted as demonstrating that there is a causal relationship between handguns in the home and homicides. The paper itself doesn't go that far, but it uses suggestive language, which suggests that there is more than merely an 'association'. The flaws in the paper are such as to make the the reader suspicious of the association found. Showing flaws in the methods does not prove that the paper is wrong, but it causes a loss of confidence in the results. Conclusions which are not properly supported must be considered invalid until proper support becomes available, if ever. It is the responsibility of the authors to support their conclusions. It isn't the responsibility of the readers to go out to collect data to prove that the flaws in the paper lead to incorrect conclusions.

The detailed treatment of these flaws, with supporting data, examples and methods is necessarily quite long, but it does illustrate that the Kellerman, et al paper is based on unsupported assumptions and that the conclusions must be viewed with suspicion or rejected as being unsupported.

-- Henry E. Schaffer, Ph. D.

Serious Flaws in Kellerman

Get up, get up, get outta here, GOOOOOONE!!