More normal people with guns, more criminals getting shot during criminal attacks….good.

[JoeB131]

Says the guy who repeats a lie countless times as if he believes telling it over and over and over and over again will make it true

Except that it isn't a lie. If anything, Kellerman was probably underestimating the problem.

So let's review on a macro scale. In 2020, we had 19,500 gun murders, and 24000 gun suicides, and 500 unintentional gun deaths.

But according to the FBI, only 200 or so gun deaths were civilians acting in justified self defense.

Since we know that at least half of the homicides are domestic violence, and most of the suicides and accidents involved the victim's own gun, we can assume that 30,000+ of those gun deaths at a minimum were Domestic violence, suicide or accidents (a gun in the home killing a household member), compared to 200 times that someone used a gun to save their life by killing the bad guy.

30,000: 200 = 150:1 Actually, MUCH HIGHER than the number Kellerman came up with.

So then you guys have to go into the speculative, all the times a gun owner waved his gun at a scary person and that scary person ran away. Except you guys are all over the map on how often that happens, but it doesn't matter, because that's a non-event. Just like all the times that a domestic abuser threatens his family with a gun but doesn't kill them.

 

[Blues Man]

Except that it isn't a lie. If anything, Kellerman was probably underestimating the problem.

So let's review on a macro scale. In 2020, we had 19,500 gun murders, and 24000 gun suicides, and 500 unintentional gun deaths.

But according to the FBI, only 200 or so gun deaths were civilians acting in justified self defense.

Since we know that at least half of the homicides are domestic violence, and most of the suicides and accidents involved the victim's own gun, we can assume that 30,000+ of those gun deaths at a minimum were Domestic violence, suicide or accidents (a gun in the home killing a household member), compared to 200 times that someone used a gun to save their life by killing the bad guy.

30,000: 200 = 150:1 Actually, MUCH HIGHER than the number Kellerman came up with.

So then you guys have to go into the speculative, all the times a gun owner waved his gun at a scary person and that scary person ran away. Except you guys are all over the map on how often that happens, but it doesn't matter, because that's a non-event. Just like all the times that a domestic abuser threatens his family with a gun but doesn't kill them.

That number has been debunked so many times as to be be utterly meaningless.

 

[JoeB131]

That number has been debunked so many times as to be be utterly meaningless.

By debunked, you mean, the Gun Fetishists stomped their little feet and said, "I don't want it be true!!!"

But if anything, for the reasons stated above, it was probably a low estimate.

Simple enough solution. Let's review every gun death in the country in a given period. Let's put them in six categories.

Homicide by a stranger
Suicide
Homicide by a family member/neighbor/Friend
Accident
Homicide by a police officer
Homicide by a civilian defending themselves from a crime.

Then divide the 2, 3, 4th number by the sixth number. (the first and fifth numbers can be eliminated from this survey because they are not happening with a gun bought to protect the home.)

Then let's see what the ratio is. I'm willing to bet that it's closer to the Kellerman number or higher.

 

[Blues Man]

By debunked, you mean, the Gun Fetishists stomped their little feet and said, "I don't want it be true!!!"

But if anything, for the reasons stated above, it was probably a low estimate.

Simple enough solution. Let's review every gun death in the country in a given period. Let's put them in six categories.

Homicide by a stranger
Suicide
Homicide by a family member/neighbor/Friend
Accident
Homicide by a police officer
Homicide by a civilian defending themselves from a crime.

Then divide the 2, 3, 4th number by the sixth number. (the first and fifth numbers can be eliminated from this survey because they are not happening with a gun bought to protect the home.)

Then let's see what the ratio is. I'm willing to bet that it's closer to the Kellerman number or higher.

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

fee.org

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7



In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “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 percent-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.”8

Greater Risk to Victims?​

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been 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, the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a high incidence of financial instability. In fact, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home. There is no basis for applying the conclusions to the general population.

Most important, Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms.

In this 1993 study, they arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Although the 1993 NEJM study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is, as Kates and associates showed, 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn’t live in the victims’ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.9

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases. This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped indicate if the study had been compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

These errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

​

 

[Hollie]

Except that it isn't a lie. If anything, Kellerman was probably underestimating the problem.

So let's review on a macro scale. In 2020, we had 19,500 gun murders, and 24000 gun suicides, and 500 unintentional gun deaths.

But according to the FBI, only 200 or so gun deaths were civilians acting in justified self defense.

Since we know that at least half of the homicides are domestic violence, and most of the suicides and accidents involved the victim's own gun, we can assume that 30,000+ of those gun deaths at a minimum were Domestic violence, suicide or accidents (a gun in the home killing a household member), compared to 200 times that someone used a gun to save their life by killing the bad guy.

30,000: 200 = 150:1 Actually, MUCH HIGHER than the number Kellerman came up with.

So then you guys have to go into the speculative, all the times a gun owner waved his gun at a scary person and that scary person ran away. Except you guys are all over the map on how often that happens, but it doesn't matter, because that's a non-event. Just like all the times that a domestic abuser threatens his family with a gun but doesn't kill them.

"Except that it isn't a lie. If anything, Kellerman was probably underestimating the problem."

You forgot to append, "because I said so" to your comment.

Yours is a terrific argument. Just change what was in a study to make it fit your agenda.

 

[Hollie]

It's actually laughable, ln a mordant way.

Over a dozen suspects arrested on gun charges during Carnival walk free when D.A. refuses charges

15 people, arrested for illegally carrying a weapon during Carnival, walked free when the Orleans District Attorney’s office refused the charges.

www.fox8live.com

We see with regularity that leftist gun control is all about disarming the public while allowing the criminal class a free pass. Disarming the population is a classic strategy of all the totalitarian leftist sociopaths who have gained power in the 20th century and destroyed their populations.

 

[80zephyr]

Hilarious

Do you have different facts?

 

[JoeB131]

In a 1986 NEJM paper,

YOu can post all the NRA Spooge you want, just not interested.

We see with regularity that leftist gun control is all about disarming the public while allowing the criminal class a free pass. Disarming the population is a classic strategy of all the totalitarian leftist sociopaths who have gained power in the 20th century and destroyed their populations.

No, it's about the sane part of the country getting sick and fucking tired of sharing our streets with gun toting madmen.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No amount of firearms control will get them from the criminals all you propose is disarming law abiding citizens leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals. And even if firearms were banned completely criminals would still get them by smuggling or raiding the cops and the military.

 

[AZrailwhale]

YOu can post all the NRA Spooge you want, just not interested.




No, it's about the sane part of the country getting sick and fucking tired of sharing our streets with gun toting madmen.

then go after armed criminals, not armed law-abiding citizens.

 

[Hollie]

YOu can post all the NRA Spooge you want, just not interested.




No, it's about the sane part of the country getting sick and fucking tired of sharing our streets with gun toting madmen.

Maybe take your phony melodrama elsewhere. Leftists are a bad joke.

Woke Assistant DA refuses to pursue Mardi Gras gun cases involving 15 suspects

New Orleans Assistant DA. 'deviated' from 'standard practice' when she refused the cases of 15 suspects in Mardi Gras gun sweep, DA says

www.bizpacreview.com

 

[JoeB131]

then go after armed criminals, not armed law-abiding citizens.

Except they are part of the problem.

You see, when you guys oppose background checks, registrations, bans on weapons that don't belong anywhere but a battlefield, whether or not you abide by the law is besides the point, you've made it easy for the non-law abiding to get them.

Now, if Joe were dictator, the ATF would be going house to house confiscating guns. But I realize that this is where we need to comprimise. Reasonable compromise is having laws like Germany has. You can get a gun, after you have been heavily vetted. This is also what Canada does.

They have NOWHERE NEAR the problems we have, and they lock up very few people.

 

[otto105]

No amount of firearms control will get them from the criminals all you propose is disarming law abiding citizens leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals. And even if firearms were banned completely criminals would still get them by smuggling or raiding the cops and the military.

I’m sorry old man but you don’t know the law.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Except they are part of the problem.

You see, when you guys oppose background checks, registrations, bans on weapons that don't belong anywhere but a battlefield, whether or not you abide by the law is besides the point, you've made it easy for the non-law abiding to get them.

Now, if Joe were dictator, the ATF would be going house to house confiscating guns. But I realize that this is where we need to comprimise. Reasonable compromise is having laws like Germany has. You can get a gun, after you have been heavily vetted. This is also what Canada does.

They have NOWHERE NEAR the problems we have, and they lock up very few people.

Well over ninety percent of gun violence is directly attributable to criminals and their crimes. You can spout your bullcrap as much as you want. But taking any kind of guns away from law-abiding citizens won't affect gun crimes at all.

 

[Stryder50]

Gun in the home, 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.

Still the truth you don't like.

Gotta watch out for those guns.
Just out of the blue they get up on their own and shoot anyone just for the heck of it.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Gotta watch out for those guns.
Just out of the blue they get up on their own and shoot anyone just for the heck of it.

The problem is, some undesirables run about with guns because A) There's an abundance of them, and B) Anyone can own one.

This leads onto problem two. The minority then A) Arm themselves to the teeth with guns, and B) End up being paranoid believing their government is gonna go tyrannical and billions of villains are shooting the place up.

And that's America's gun culture, with the added part that the "good" guy thinks they're the good guy, but their mentality is that they're willing to shoot others. And the reason why people get shot it that people are willing to shoot others.

 

[Blues Man]

YOu can post all the NRA Spooge you want, just not interested.




No, it's about the sane part of the country getting sick and fucking tired of sharing our streets with gun toting madmen.

FYI NEJM is the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study you like to quote is flawed but you cannot admit it even when those flaws are laid out in front of you.

 

[2aguy]

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

fee.org

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7



In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “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 percent-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.”8

Greater Risk to Victims?​

In 1993, in another peer-reviewed NEJM article (the research again heavily funded by the CDC), Kellermann attempted to show that guns in the home are a greater risk to the residents than to the assailants. Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Kellermann used the same flawed methodology and non-sequitur approach. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected counties known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population.

For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a household member who had been 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, the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a high incidence of financial instability. In fact, gun ownership, the supposedly high-risk factor for homicide, was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being a murder victim. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, a history of family violence, and living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than having a gun in the home. There is no basis for applying the conclusions to the general population.

Most important, Kellermann and his associates again failed to consider the protective benefits of firearms.

In this 1993 study, they arrived at the “2.7 times fallacy.” In other words, they downsized their fallacy and claimed a family member is 2.7 times more likely to kill another family member than an intruder. Yet, a fallacy is still a fallacy and, as such, it deserves no place in scientific investigations and peer-reviewed medical publications.

Although the 1993 NEJM study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is, as Kates and associates showed, 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who didn’t live in the victims’ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.9

While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases. This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped indicate if the study had been compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.

These errors invalidated the findings of the 1993 Kellermann study, just as they tainted those of 1986. Nevertheless, the errors have crept into and now permeate the lay press, the electronic media, and particularly, the medical journals, where they remain uncorrected and are repeated time and again as gospel. The media and gun-control groups still cling to the “43 times fallacy” and repeatedly invoke the erroneous mantra that “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” And, because the publication of the data (and their purported conclusions) supposedly come from “reliable” sources and objective medical researchers, they are given a lot of weight and credibility by practicing physicians, social scientists (who should know better), social workers, law-enforcement officials, and particularly gun-banning politicians.

​

Yep.... thanks i am going to copy that for future use

 

[Hollie]

The problem is, some undesirables run about with guns because A) There's an abundance of them, and B) Anyone can own one.

This leads onto problem two. The minority then A) Arm themselves to the teeth with guns, and B) End up being paranoid believing their government is gonna go tyrannical and billions of villains are shooting the place up.

And that's America's gun culture, with the added part that the "good" guy thinks they're the good guy, but their mentality is that they're willing to shoot others. And the reason why people get shot it that people are willing to shoot others.

Not everyone can legally own a firearm. In 2019, 300,000 background checks resulted in rejections of sales.

Gun sales surged during the pandemic, but so did rejections from background checks, which hit a record high of 300,000

More than four out of ten would-be buyers had felony convictions on their records, according to the group Everytown for Gun Safety.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[JoeB131]

Well over ninety percent of gun violence is directly attributable to criminals and their crimes. You can spout your bullcrap as much as you want. But taking any kind of guns away from law-abiding citizens won't affect gun crimes at all.

That simply isn't true. 60% of gun deaths are suicides.
Of the rest, most are domestic violence.

Only about 2500 murders a year are classified as gang related.