Repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Cardinal Carminative]

You should have listened while you getting them. It is clear you wasted your money.

You are starting to bore me. Please try to change it up and make it more interesting. Get back to random accusations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

a

If you have data that disagrees with the studies you should DEFINITELY PUBLISH! It would be good to see it.

No valid study says anything like what you claim the one that does was debunked LONG AGO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“…we agree with Justice Stevens that the Second Amendment, properly understood, is not a legal impediment to the kinds of reasonable gun regulations that form the mainstream of the U.S. gun debate — things like expanded background checks, prohibitions on unreasonably powerful weapons, and limits on possession by especially dangerous persons. In keeping with Heller’s admonition (echoed in McDonald) that gun rights are not absolute, the number and percentage of successful legal challenges claiming a violation of the Second Amendment remains quite low. That low rate of success makes even more sense when one considers that stringent gun regulations are rare, leaving only the most reasonable and popular regulations open to challenge. This is not a target-rich environment for gun rights litigators.” supra

The question, of course, is that however reasonable a firearm regulation might be, how effective is that regulation; does it foment actual public safety, is the perception of public safety sufficient to justify that regulation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Come get them

An example of the dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity common to most on the right, and why honest, good faith discussion of the Second Amendment is impossible with conservatives – the right’s propensity for lies and fearmongering.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; guns are not going to be ‘taken.’

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No valid study says anything like what you claim the one that does was debunked LONG AGO.

Show me the citation in which it was debunked. Not just your personal feelings or a post you wrote on "Randos.org".

Show me how the data was flawed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Show me the citation in which it was debunked. Not just your personal feelings or a post you wrote on "Randos.org".

Show me how the data was flawed.

Look it up your self you are to ignorant to accept my take.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Look it up your self you are to ignorant to accept my take.

Sorry, not gonna do that. You claimed it was debunked. If you don't care enough to show it was debunked then I will proceed as if you didn't say anything at all.

Your point is meaningless unless you back it up.

(Don't worry, that's not an accusation, I've done it too from time to time. Sometimes it just gets too hard to keep looking stuff up. But just so you know, your point has no value to me if it has no value to you.)

 

[miketx]

An example of the dishonesty, ignorance, and stupidity common to most on the right, and why honest, good faith discussion of the Second Amendment is impossible with conservatives – the right’s propensity for lies and fearmongering.

No one wants to ‘take’ anyone’s guns; guns are not going to be ‘taken.’

Lying as usual. Quit screwing around commie and come get them! And besides communist double talk, what is a good faith discussion?

 

[2aguy]

I think we should at the very least amend it to be more in line with the concept of the militia and not just the random dude on the street.

We also need to clarify and possibly rein in what counts as "infringement" of that right. For instance there's no "infringement" of the right if we simply ask for everyone with guns to be on a central registry. There's no infringement of the right if the government knows where the guns are.

While it's not part of the 2A we could also do with eliminating concealed and open carry. There's literally no reason for a modern civilized nation to look like some Wild West Fiction where everyone is struttin' around packin' heat. That's not rational.

In the 1920s the German government made the argument for a central gun registry…the people believed the government when it told them the registry would make them safer, because the government would protect them

15 years later, the new people who controlled the government, the nazis, used that centralized gun registry to disarm Jews and their political enemies……

They then went on to murder 15 million men, women, and children

So no thank you on a gun registry….

Then, you could attempt to show us what a gun registry has to do with safety……

In the Haynes v United States Supreme Court decision, the court ruled that actual criminals did not have to register their illegal guns….since it would be a violation of their Right against self incrimination.

And again….what does a gun registry actually do?

Canada tried to register 3 million rifles…..the cost became prohibitive and the police said it didn’t help them solve or prevent crimws

 

[2aguy]

“Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.” ibid

And, also in theory, it’s possible that a future Supreme Court could overturn Heller, abandoning the individual right interpretation and restoring the collective right interpretation.

Let me help you……..

Most left wing, anti-gun fanatics pretending to be real linguists and historians,pretend that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it actually says because they hate guns and want them banned….

There, fixed that for you

 

[2aguy]

Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.

But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself. Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun? Shouldn't be. If the gun is to protect yourself then there's no reason there can't be a registry.



Agreed.



Disagree. This isn't a wild west movie.

I showed you the study that information came from and the author….Arthur kellerman, was called out for how poorly it was done and did it over….revising his number downward from 47 to 1, all the way to 2.1 to 1


And that still didn’t fix the problems with his work since he used specific populations with the worst problems as his sample group….

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

In the 1920s the German government made the argument for a central gun registry…the people believed the government when it told them the registry would make them safer, because the government would protect them

Oh god, not Germany again.

Why do you guys ignore TODAY and the rest of the world in preference to the "worst case scenario"?

So no thank you on a gun registry….

Because there's only two positions: Murderous DIctatorship or Weekly Child Culling.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I showed you the study that information came from and the author….Arthur kellerman, was called out for how poorly it was done and did it over….revising his number downward from 47 to 1, all the way to 2.1 to 1


And that still didn’t fix the problems with his work since he used specific populations with the worst problems as his sample group….

I don't recall that. Please point me to the study. Or when I've got some time I'll try to find a reference for Kellerman. I'm a professional researcher I'm often called on to find other people's points.

 

[2aguy]

Oh god, not Germany again.

Why do you guys ignore TODAY and the rest of the world in preference to the "worst case scenario"?



Because there's only two positions: Murderous DIctatorship or Weekly Child Culling.

Moron, the worst case scenario is why we have the 2nd Amendment

Just like when they talk about why we need modern fire prevention they talk about the worst school fire and the worst sweat shop factory fire…..you dope.

And it isn’t just Germany…..Russia murdered 25 million, China murdered 70 million, the Rwandans murdered 500,000….

Those are all the freaking worst case scenarios that we have a 1nd Amendment to prevent….

Then you have the rapists, robbers and murder era who are local worst case scenarios….

 

[2aguy]

I don't recall that. Please point me to the study. Or when I've got some time I'll try to find a reference for Kellerman. I'm a professional researcher I'm often called on to find other people's points.

Here........everything on the research you keep using....

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likely myth, was forced to retract that study and to do the research over when other academics pointed out how flawed his methods were....he then changed the 43 times number to 2.7, but he was still using flawed data to get even that number.....

Below is the study where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7 and below that is the explanation as to why that number isn't even accurate.

Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home | NEJM

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;

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

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

3. The Incredibly Flawed Public Health Research Guns in the Home At a town hall at George Mason University in January 2016, President Obama said, “If you look at the statistics, there's no doubt that there are times where somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is that they may not have been able to protect themselves, but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.”25 The primary proponents of this claim are Arthur Kellermann and his many coauthors. A gun, they have argued, is less likely to be used in killing a criminal than it is to be used in killing someone the gun owner knows. 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. To demonstrate, suppose that we use the same statistical method—with a matching control group—to do a study on the efficacy of hospital care. Assume that we collect data just as these authors did, compiling a list of all the people who died in a particular county over the period of a year. Then we ask their relatives whether they had been admitted to the hospital during the previous year. We also put together a control sample consisting of neighbors who are part of the same sex, race, and age group. Then we ask these men and women whether they have been in a hospital during the past year. My bet is that those who spent time in hospitals are much more likely to have died.


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

 

[Road Runner]

If we revoke the second amendment then the crime rate is going to rise and everything that our troops died fighting for would be in vain. Not a good thought to have on Memorial Day weekend. So many soldiers are probably rolling in their graves right now.

 

[task0778]

Studies show the guns in your home are statistically more likely to be used against family members either intentionally or accidentally or increase the chance of suicide than that they will be used to defend the homeowner and family.

I have some doubts about such studies, generally for every study that says X another one will say Y. And the responsibility for a gun in the home is on the gun owner.

But you should definitely have the right to protect yourself.

Thank you.

Is there a problem with the government having a list of your home/you as having a gun?

I don't need a bunch of crazy anti-gun people protesting outside my home.

Disagree. This isn't a wild west movie.

This comment is about carrying a weapon in public. There's a lotta crazies out there, road rage and all that. If somebody pulls a gun and starts firing at me I want to be able to shoot back. In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.

 

[miketx]

In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.

That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!

 

[Road Runner]

That's what leftists get off over. Notice they never try to fix the school murders!

Yet they don't seem to be against cars and look how many deaths they have caused.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I have some doubts about such studies, generally for every study that says X another one will say Y. And the responsibility for a gun in the home is on the gun owner.

I've only ever seen studies that say that guns in the home are more of a danger to the owners. But, again, that's not necessarily true for EVERY home with guns. But it certainly explains America's off-the-charts level of gun homicide rates.

I don't need a bunch of crazy anti-gun people protesting outside my home.

Well, in America no one is guaranteed freedom from THAT. Some women have to endure even worse just going to Planned Parenthood offices.

This comment is about carrying a weapon in public. There's a lotta crazies out there, road rage and all that. If somebody pulls a gun and starts firing at me I want to be able to shoot back. In a wild west movie nobody dies, but in real life it does happen.

But it's the problem. The problem is too many Americans have this image of themselves as John Wayne and they are 100% sure they will be flawless in their assessment of the situation in the street and will be able to do what a man's gotta do.

Unfortunately even police officers say in an active shooter situation a "good guy with a gun" is more of an impediment and may even be shot by the police since they don't know who is the good guy and who is the bad guy (lacking black cowboy hats and all).

My point isn't meant to be totally facetious. I am serious that I fear that 99% of the people who talk so big about how they are ready to defend themselves in the worst of situations will, in fact, turn out to make the situation far more worse. There's almost no study that finds the "good guy with a gun" scenario as anything more than an occasional case. It just doesn't happen much. Certainly not at the rate of American gun ownership rates.

If the "Good guy with a gun" scenario were true this country would be the safest place on earth. But we are not.