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

[JoeB131]

You know what, a paid shill of the gun industry is about as credible with me as a paid shill of the tobacco industry insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The thing is, Kellerman drives you guys nuts because he debunks the major myth of why you nutters want guns.

To protect yourself from that scary negro who might want to break into your house.

When in reality, a gun is more likely to end up killing you in a domestic argument or suicide.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:

- No peer review

- No release of raw data has ever been made

- Sampling and bias errors

1. 65% of subjects were black

2. Does not consider positive aspects of gun ownership by asking if a weapon was used to frighten off an intruder, or if the homicides were justified (i.e. justifiable homicides by homeowner or police.) Kellerman merely asked: "In this household where a homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun in the house?" Kellerman intentionally limited his study group to cases where people were murdered in their own homes.​

- Error introduced due to failure of subjects to respond honestly was not treated in Kellerman's study.

- Improperly grouped subgroups into populations using the chi-square Mantel-Haenszel analysis for matched pairs without giving an analysis, which leads to errors due to the stratification of the data.

- Only three counties were used in his study thereby making the application of even causal associations within the data to the entire population of the U.S. a farce.

- 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record

- 31.3% had a history of drug abuse

- 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight

- Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know what, a paid shill of the gun industry is about as credible with me as a paid shill of the tobacco industry insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer.

The thing is, Kellerman drives you guys nuts because he debunks the major myth of why you nutters want guns.

To protect yourself from that scary negro who might want to break into your house.

When in reality, a gun is more likely to end up killing you in a domestic argument or suicide.

Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, Joe, you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.

Need I go on?

 

[Bumberclyde]

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

Ban bullets, no constitutional protection for bullets.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Keep spouting that lie Joe, although it has been thoroughly debunked. Have a good morning. Make sure you don't cross me in a gun control debate ever again. You should be embarrassed.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.

Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[

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.

Yea, they don't need cars in Loonsville, and naturally, they don't need guns.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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?

Umm...he's back in his second childhood, maybe his fifth, dreaming about toy guns.

 

[JoeB131]

The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:


65% of subjects were black



- 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record

- 31.3% had a history of drug abuse

- 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight

- Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?

Oh, so if it's BLACK people getting killed, that totally makes it okay, then.

I see the logic here.

People getting killed are people getting killed. The fact they had a "family member with an arrest record" is kind of dishonest, since with 2 million in prison and 9 million on probation or parole, that's a pretty wide statistic. Who the fuck doesn't have a family member with an arrest record?

It's just "those people" getting killed, that makes it okay.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.

Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.

Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The flaws in Kellerman's study can be summarized as:


65% of subjects were black



- 52.7% of Kellerman's subjects had a family member with an arrest record

- 31.3% had a history of drug abuse

- 31.8% had a household member hurt in a family fight

- Given the above is this representative of a "typical" American household?

Oh, so if it's BLACK people getting killed, that totally makes it okay, then.

I see the logic here.

People getting killed are people getting killed. The fact they had a "family member with an arrest record" is kind of dishonest, since with 2 million in prison and 9 million on probation or parole, that's a pretty wide statistic. Who the fuck doesn't have a family member with an arrest record?

It's just "those people" getting killed, that makes it okay.

Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim.

You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. How utterly pathetic. Only a liberal can and would understand the musings of another.

 

[JoeB131]

So, Joe, you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.

Need I go on?

Exccept - "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.

What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.

And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".

And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.

If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.

We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.

But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.

That would probably put the figure at 160-1.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sorry, you have nothing to back that statement up. I know you don't. Last time I checked, my grandmother was never caught running moonshine back in the day, her mom didn't, nor did her father, or their fathers and so on and so forth. So not everyone has an arrest record, Joe. That is another unsubstantiated claim.

You see the "logic" because it's Kellerman's paper you're attacking. You're pathetic. Only a liberal can understand the musings of another.

Depends how you define "an arrest record".

My brother has an arrest record. he stole a light bulb off someone's lawn when he was 19. No charges were pressed, and he apologized, but it was an "arrest record".

Point is, you are like the upset baseball player who kicks dirt on the base...

Nothing you've said have debunked Kellerman's main finding... that you are far more likely to be killed by your own gun than kill that bad guy you are soooo afraid of.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Sorry Joe, I'm taking your little lie apart. Look closely. I have reams of data that debunk that claim. I could go on all morning about how you are wrong.

Yeah, I know, you can take your NRA talking points, with dollops of racism, and go on all day.

Buh bye! I've never whipped anybody this badly before.

:

only in your own mind.

Kellerman is established fact. The CDC accepts his study, so do most scientific and academic bodies.

 

[Bern80]

[

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.

We have become heavily dependent on them for sure. But we don't need them. You're pretty much making argument for me though. The investment? Again, you're all but flat out admitting those deaths are tolerable due to the inconvenience involved in banning the inanimate object they were involved.

And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.

P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.

 

[JoeB131]

Reality from RESPECTED Academics.

Emory Magazine: Arthur Kellermann

Actually, Kellermann found an almost absolute void in the consideration of that question. The most relevant item he discovered in the medical literature was a one-line mention in an old issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that asserted that a gun in the home was six times more likely to be involved in an accidental death of a family member than to be used to kill an intruder in self-defense. "I saw that observation quoted repeatedly in subsequent editorials or medical reviews but no additional research on the question," he says.

Kellermann has spent much of his professional life trying to fill that gap. His studies have found a strong link between guns and violent death. For example:


In a 1986 study that examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an [intruder]."

Kellermann and several colleagues published a study in 1988 that examined the link between handgun regulations and handgun homicide and assault in Vancouver, a city that had adopted "a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns," and Seattle. The study found that "the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver."

In 1993, Kellermann was the lead investigator in a study that looked at homicides that occurred in homes in Cleveland, Memphis, and Seattle over five years. The results showed that homicides occurred nearly three times more often in homes where guns were stored than in otherwise comparable homes where there was no gun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, Joe, you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.

Need I go on?

Exccept - "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.

What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.

And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".

And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.

If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.

We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.

But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.

That would probably put the figure at 160-1.

Since when did you get your degree in criminology? Yes, the number of suicides is correct, but not all of them were committed with a firearm. Not all murders are committed with firearms, and yeah, gun accidents which counted as how much of a percent of the population as a whole? You're being blatantly dishonest, and so was Kellermann.

In 1994 (after the publication of his paper), Kellerman was taped giving a presentation at a seminar. At this time he states on the tape that a person is 18 times more likely to be murdered if they keep a firearm in the home! Guess who was at the seminar, Joe? None other than Janet Reno. She loved quoting him when speaking about gun control in her capacity as Attorney General during the Clinton Administration.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So, Joe, you are DEAD wrong. There is no way in hell someone who owned a firearm could be "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." The study you cite is grotesquely flawed.

Need I go on?

Exccept - "43 times more likely to die in his own home than one who did not." is not what Kellerman found.

What Kellerman found was that for every case where a gun was used to kill a criminal, there were 43 cases where they killed a member of the household.

And pointing out that some of those people were black or had criminal records doesn't take away from the fact they were killed with a gun that someone had brought into that house for "protection".

And none of your statistically gobbly-gook really takes away from that fact.

If anything, Kellerman was probably being generous.

We had 19,500 suicides, 11,101 murder and 853 gun accidents last year.

But the FBI's studies find that there are only about 200 cases of "justified homicide" involving a gun every year.

That would probably put the figure at 160-1.

Ib J. Edgar Hoover is rolling over in his grave at this minute. LMAO

Maybe, he has a gun.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And again, need is entirely irrelevant. I've said it before and you have yet to come up with adequate evidence otherwise; statistically there is a less than 1% chance that any of the guns I own or anyone else owns will be used to hurt or kill someone else. Anecdotally I grew up surrounded by guns. In 30 plus years no one has ever been harmed by anyone or even shot at by anyone. Your notion that guns pose an inherent threat to the communites they are present in is entirely disproven by that.

Expect the two reasons you give for WANTING The gun, wanting to kill a bad guy (almost never happens) and wanting to fight the government (Just batshit crazy) are statistically MORE unlikely than you or a member of your family or your neighbor being shot because one day, you lost your shit.

On the other hand, a car is going to do exactly what it is designed to do most of the time, get me from point A to point B.

P.S. still waitig for you to tell me why muy way of getting meat is so sadistic and yours is not.

I didn't personally commit the kiling, you dumbfuck.

Just like I don't personally dispose of my garbage.

If you get your jollies out of killing an animal, you have serious issues.