the mall stabbing video...the difference between being armed and unarmed....getting stabbed...

[airplanemechanic]

Yes, the NRA does a really good job telling people something 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy is really good for them.

I haven't known one person who used a gun to defend themselves. I've known 3 people who've had tragedies because there was a gun in the house. One of them lived right next door to me.

Lying liberal alert!!!!

Gun myth.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state,

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.

How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude,

"The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst.

This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument.

But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly

"…[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear."

It's quite simple. They skew the stats by ignoring all the times guns are used to defend the home and the criminal is not shot dead. You can't do that. That's liberal bias. If guns are used 100,000 times to defend a home and yet one person is killed because he's a moron and playing with his gun in his house while its loaded, the liberals would report the 1 death and ignore the 100,000 lives saved. I guess liberals really don't care about lives saved, only lives taken. Why are liberals so obsessed with death? Why do they love death? Do they get off on it? Does it help them to jizz? I guess when you're a gay transsexual bisexual transvestite queer death is probably the only thing left to get your rocks off on.

“Great Kid” Home Invader Wearing a Mask Shot Dead

16yo wasn't legally carrying a firearm, yet used one when breaking into a house. Wait......you mean someone can possess and use a firearm illegally? But liberals tell me it's only conservatives who illegally seem to own all the guns.....

Yea, stupid liberals, if you own a gun you have to be responsible for it. But cars kill far more people than guns do, yet liberals love cars.

Do they really care about people or just want to push a political agenda? See my sig.

 

[tycho1572]

You're missing the video...

That's not all he's missing.

Here's the problem with Dick Tiny's argument here. The person who shot the stabber was a trained security guard, who had hundreds of hours of firearm proficiency training.

It's not quite the same as some yahoo at the mall carrying a gun under his coat because he was compensating for his shortcomings. Those people are never helpful.

In fact, nearly every "good guy with a gun" story turns out to be an off-duty police officer, military reservist or security guard. You know, people who are trained to know what they are doing and have been vetted.

Yea...it's much better to watch people get stabbed than risk an accident with a gun.

smh

 

[jasonnfree]

Your premise is legitimately flawed. First I've never seen an actual study on the correlation of penis size, to CCW registry. Secondly your premise completely ignores the rapidly growing number of women CCW'rs.

Yes, the NRA does a really good job telling people something 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy is really good for them.

I haven't known one person who used a gun to defend themselves. I've known 3 people who've had tragedies because there was a gun in the house. One of them lived right next door to me.

Looks like you hang out with the irresponsible types.

 

[jon_berzerk]

of course he does he is a leftard afterall

 

[airplanemechanic]

Maybe liberals are proving that their views on guns are right. They obviously show they are irresponsible with them, so yea, they should give up their guns. Let only the police, military and conservatives carry them. At least that way we can minimize how many idiots die by gun.

And liberals will finally be disarmed like they've been wanting for so long.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Maybe liberals are proving that their views on guns are right. They obviously show they are irresponsible with them, so yea, they should give up their guns. Let only the police, military and conservatives carry them. At least that way we can minimize how many idiots die by gun.

And liberals will finally be disarmed like they've been wanting for so long.

agree

nothing more dangerous then a libtard with a gun

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Watch how many times the unarmed guy is stabbed.....watch the armed guy stop the attacker.....

so....would you want to get stabbed repeatedly, or would you want to be able to shoot the attacker?

If having a gun matters than how come two heavily armed cops were gunned down near the front door of a house in Palm Springs?

Lack of training?

I remember when the DC Police switched over from Sigs to Glocks. They were shooting each other in the legs and themselves in the feet because they were not trained.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hundreds of hours? A mall security guard?

I'm sure you can prove that right?

Shit I have hundreds of range hours in. I have taken a half dozen firearm defense and situational fire classes. And that's more than any rent a cop has to take to carry a gun

Yeah, but you're a crazy person, so I'd still wouldn't want you to have gun.

LOL....he's the "crazy person"??

You're the guy who keeps telling us the 2nd amendment is going to have a very short lifespan and you've made 4 billion posts in just a couple of years!!

C'mon.......who has the issues now s0n??

 

[skookerasbil]

OH.....40% of American households have a gun

Household Gun Ownership Surges In 40 Year Trend Reversal

Likely much higher, of course...........

 

[Manonthestreet]

I would hope that my wife or children would be stabbed instead of me, I would run away

how many libtards afaid to vote the truth

--LOL

Once had a high school teacher state something along the lines of being anti-violence, course he got quizzed on how far that went and even if his wife was being raped he would not resort to violence. Nobody listened to word one he said after that and he was not around the next yr.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the NRA does a really good job telling people something 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy is really good for them.

I haven't known one person who used a gun to defend themselves. I've known 3 people who've had tragedies because there was a gun in the house. One of them lived right next door to me.

Lying liberal alert!!!!

Gun myth.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state,

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.

How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude,

"The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst.

This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument.

But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly

"…[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear."

It's quite simple. They skew the stats by ignoring all the times guns are used to defend the home and the criminal is not shot dead. You can't do that. That's liberal bias. If guns are used 100,000 times to defend a home and yet one person is killed because he's a moron and playing with his gun in his house while its loaded, the liberals would report the 1 death and ignore the 100,000 lives saved. I guess liberals really don't care about lives saved, only lives taken. Why are liberals so obsessed with death? Why do they love death? Do they get off on it? Does it help them to jizz? I guess when you're a gay transsexual bisexual transvestite queer death is probably the only thing left to get your rocks off on.

“Great Kid” Home Invader Wearing a Mask Shot Dead

16yo wasn't legally carrying a firearm, yet used one when breaking into a house. Wait......you mean someone can possess and use a firearm illegally? But liberals tell me it's only conservatives who illegally seem to own all the guns.....

Yea, stupid liberals, if you own a gun you have to be responsible for it. But cars kill far more people than guns do, yet liberals love cars.

Do they really care about people or just want to push a political agenda? See my sig.

Joe knows the 43 times is a lie....I have shown him the actual study the guy did where he changed his number....and even that number is suspect because he didn't do it properly.....joe has seen the research, the actual research but he continues to use the 43 number........he is a liar.....

 

[2aguy]

Yes, the NRA does a really good job telling people something 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy is really good for them.

I haven't known one person who used a gun to defend themselves. I've known 3 people who've had tragedies because there was a gun in the house. One of them lived right next door to me.

Lying liberal alert!!!!

Gun myth.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

The "43 times" claim was based upon a small-scale study of firearms deaths in King County, Washington (Seattle and Bellevue) covering the period 1978-83. The authors state,

"Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified…A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."

Having said this, these authors proceed anyway to exclude those same instances where a potential criminal was not killed but was thwarted.

How many successful self-defense events do not result in death of the criminal? An analysis by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, v. 86 n.1 [Fall 1995]) of successful defensive uses of firearms against criminal attack concluded that the criminal is killed in only one case in approximately every one thousand attacks. If this same ratio is applied to defensive uses in the home, then Kellermann's "43 times" is off by a factor of a thousand and should be at least as small as 0.043, not 43. Any evaluation of the effectiveness of firearms as defense against criminal assault should incorporate every event where a crime is either thwarted or mitigated; thus Kellermann's conclusion omits 999 non-lethal favorable outcomes from criminal attack and counts only the one event in which the criminal is killed. With woeful disregard for this vital point, recognized by these authors but then ignored, they conclude,

"The advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned."

In making this statement the authors have demonstrated an inexcusable non-scientific bias against the effectiveness of firearms ownership for self defense. This is junk science at its worst.

This vital flaw in Kellermann and Reay's paper was demonstrated clearly just six months later, on Dec. 4, 1986 by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen in the same journal (v. 315 n. 23, p. 1483-84), yet these letters have been ignored for fourteen years in favor of the grossly exaggerated figure of the original article. The continual use of the "43 times" figure by groups opposed to the defensive use of firearms suggests the appalling weakness of their argument.

But there's more. Included in the "43 times" of Kellermann are 37 suicides, some 86 percent of the alleged total, which have nothing to do with either crime or defensive uses of firearms. Even Kellermann and Reay say clearly

"…[that] the precise nature of the relation between gun availability and suicide is unclear."

It's quite simple. They skew the stats by ignoring all the times guns are used to defend the home and the criminal is not shot dead. You can't do that. That's liberal bias. If guns are used 100,000 times to defend a home and yet one person is killed because he's a moron and playing with his gun in his house while its loaded, the liberals would report the 1 death and ignore the 100,000 lives saved. I guess liberals really don't care about lives saved, only lives taken. Why are liberals so obsessed with death? Why do they love death? Do they get off on it? Does it help them to jizz? I guess when you're a gay transsexual bisexual transvestite queer death is probably the only thing left to get your rocks off on.

“Great Kid” Home Invader Wearing a Mask Shot Dead

16yo wasn't legally carrying a firearm, yet used one when breaking into a house. Wait......you mean someone can possess and use a firearm illegally? But liberals tell me it's only conservatives who illegally seem to own all the guns.....

Yea, stupid liberals, if you own a gun you have to be responsible for it. But cars kill far more people than guns do, yet liberals love cars.

Do they really care about people or just want to push a political agenda? See my sig.

this is the study kellerman did after he was called out on the lie of the 43 times myth.....the actual study...and where he changed the number from 43 to 2.7....joe has seen it....and he keeps lying....

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

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;

And here is a detailed look at the reason the number was changed....

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.

And here is the bait and switch of the anti gun researcher.....he looked at the worst of the worst groups to get his numbers....since normal gun owners don't commit crimes with guns....


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.

 

[2aguy]

Joe is lying about people who stop mass shooters......when shown the Psychiatrist who stopped the mass shooter at the hospital.....he dismisses it....when shown the Uber driver who stopped the mass shooter, he dismisses it....when show the pastors who stopped mass shooters...he dismisses it......these people are not part time cops, soldiers or anything other than normal, law abiding people....

joe has to lie....nothing he believes about guns is true, or factual.

 

[Mr Natural]

In addition to your sidearm, you should never leave home without:

• Crash helmet
• Bullet proof vest
• Lightning arrestor

Because you never know. . .

 

[pwjohn]

Watch how many times the unarmed guy is stabbed.....watch the armed guy stop the attacker.....

so....would you want to get stabbed repeatedly, or would you want to be able to shoot the attacker?

If having a gun matters than how come two heavily armed cops were gunned down near the front door of a house in Palm Springs?
This incident alone shoots your bullshit claims full of holes.

No silly. Guns do not make you bullet proof... It's a lil' different in RL, than XBOX.

That you would make fun of the officers that sacrificed their lives in the service of their community is both pathetic and disgusting.

 

[WillowTree]

I prefer to be armed. I will not be stabbed just standing there.

 

[2aguy]

This Pastor was not an off duty cop....

Deputies: Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense

According to deputies, Parangan pulled out a handgun and fired multiple shots at Pastor Terry Howell, who took out his own weapon and fired back, striking Parangan.

Howell was not injured, but Parangan was taken to Osceola Regional Medical Center in critical condition.

Deputies said several church employees witnessed the incident and gave similar statements.

this Psychiatrist was not an off duty cop.....

Penn. psychiatric center shooting intended mass killing: DA

The Pennsylvania patient accused of killing his caseworker in a psychiatric center shooting carried dozens of bullets — and he would have likely continued shooting if a doctor didn’t fire back, officials said.

Richard Plotts, 49, is expected to be charged with murder for allegedly opening fire at Sister Marie Lenahan Wellness Center in Darby Thursday.

After he killed his caseworker, 53-year-old Theresa Hunt, and shot his psychiatrist, Lee Silverman, the wounded doctor fired back, stopping the attack, District Attorney Jack Whelan said in a Friday press conference.

Plotts had 39 more bullets on him. He intended a mass shooting, Whelan said.



This Uber driver is not a cop....

An Uber driver with a concealed handgun prevented a mass shooting in Chicago

A driver with the ride-hailing service Uber put a stop to a potential mass shooting in Chicago over the weekend.

Here's the Chicago Tribune, citing Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn:

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

The Orlando night club shooter....faced 300 unarmed people and killed 49...this shooter was shot by a concealed carry permit holder....at a night club two weeks after Orlando...

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...ss-shooting-night-club-media-remained-silent/

This past Sunday, exactly two weeks to the day after the Pulse attack, there was a mass shooting outside a night club in South Carolina. I’m sure you haven’t heard about it, and for two good reasons. The first reason is that the attempted murderer was unsuccessful in killing any of his victims. The second reason is because the attempted murderer was stopped by a concealed carrier at the club drawing his weapon and putting a bullet into the bad guy.

 

[Vastator]

Watch how many times the unarmed guy is stabbed.....watch the armed guy stop the attacker.....

so....would you want to get stabbed repeatedly, or would you want to be able to shoot the attacker?

If having a gun matters than how come two heavily armed cops were gunned down near the front door of a house in Palm Springs?
This incident alone shoots your bullshit claims full of holes.

No silly. Guns do not make you bullet proof... It's a lil' different in RL, than XBOX.

That you would make fun of the officers that sacrificed their lives in the service of their community is both pathetic and disgusting.

Wow you're a dim one... No dummy... I'm mocking you. Not the cops. But then... We both know you already knew that. You just wanted a little attention. Very well. Just this once though. You pretend to act stupid. I'll pretend you're acting...

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hundreds of hours? A mall security guard?

I'm sure you can prove that right?

Shit I have hundreds of range hours in. I have taken a half dozen firearm defense and situational fire classes. And that's more than any rent a cop has to take to carry a gun

Yeah, but you're a crazy person, so I'd still wouldn't want you to have gun.

So once again you illustrate your penchant for making shit up and guess what, Corky IDGAF if you don't think I should have a gun because I already do have guns and there is not a single fucking thing you can do about it is there?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hundreds of hours? A mall security guard?

I'm sure you can prove that right?

Shit I have hundreds of range hours in. I have taken a half dozen firearm defense and situational fire classes. And that's more than any rent a cop has to take to carry a gun

Yeah, but you're a crazy person, so I'd still wouldn't want you to have gun.

LOL....he's the "crazy person"??

You're the guy who keeps telling us the 2nd amendment is going to have a very short lifespan and you've made 4 billion posts in just a couple of years!!

C'mon.......who has the issues now s0n??

Yeah JoeBlowJob thinks throwing innocent people in prison camps is a good idea because in his twisted mind innocent people are responsible for the crimes of others.