The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity

[JoeB131]

[

The reason is its methodology is crap. It does not isolate cases where the gun used was actually a law abiding homeowners weapon that was used in the commission of homicide against someone in the household vs. killing an intruder.

He also didn't count all cases where Willie White Trash threatened his family with his totally legal gun... what is your point?

[
This, by the way is what the statement "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your family/you know than an armed intruder. " Instead he took ALL gun deaths in a given area, whether the guns were legal or not, and placed them against cases where an armed intruder was killed.

So the data set is ALL weapons, not the subset of weapons owned by law abiding citizens and used inside ones home.

As an Engineer, I look at that data set vs. the statement made, and call "bullshit." It would be like including housecat scratches in a data set looking at tiger attacks.

Oh, you're an engineer. I'm sorry.

Fact is, your argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the gun was legal or not. It was in the house. Someone in that house either killed themselves or was killed by someone else in that house with that gun.

Again, the TObacco companies put warnings on their products, and were STILL held liable.

The Gun makers market their guns as home protection, when the presense of a gun makes the home a more dangerous place.

 

[beretta304]

[

The reason is its methodology is crap. It does not isolate cases where the gun used was actually a law abiding homeowners weapon that was used in the commission of homicide against someone in the household vs. killing an intruder.

He also didn't count all cases where Willie White Trash threatened his family with his totally legal gun... what is your point?

[
This, by the way is what the statement "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your family/you know than an armed intruder. " Instead he took ALL gun deaths in a given area, whether the guns were legal or not, and placed them against cases where an armed intruder was killed.

So the data set is ALL weapons, not the subset of weapons owned by law abiding citizens and used inside ones home.

As an Engineer, I look at that data set vs. the statement made, and call "bullshit." It would be like including housecat scratches in a data set looking at tiger attacks.

Oh, you're an engineer. I'm sorry.

Fact is, your argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the gun was legal or not. It was in the house. Someone in that house either killed themselves or was killed by someone else in that house with that gun.

Again, the TObacco companies put warnings on their products, and were STILL held liable.

The Gun makers market their guns as home protection, when the presense of a gun makes the home a more dangerous place.

More assfacts that Joey makes up.

The king of chery pickers and posting his opinion as fact. Have a great day Joey.

 

[JoeB131]

[



More assfacts that Joey makes up.

The king of chery pickers and posting his opinion as fact. Have a great day Joey.

So you can be butthurt all day?

Oh, wait, here's another study by medical professionals that found the same thing...

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.

"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

Well, he says only 12 times... I guess that's an improvement over Kellerman, who said 43.

 

[martybegan]

[

The reason is its methodology is crap. It does not isolate cases where the gun used was actually a law abiding homeowners weapon that was used in the commission of homicide against someone in the household vs. killing an intruder.

He also didn't count all cases where Willie White Trash threatened his family with his totally legal gun... what is your point?

[
This, by the way is what the statement "a gun is 43 times more likely to kill someone in your family/you know than an armed intruder. " Instead he took ALL gun deaths in a given area, whether the guns were legal or not, and placed them against cases where an armed intruder was killed.

So the data set is ALL weapons, not the subset of weapons owned by law abiding citizens and used inside ones home.

As an Engineer, I look at that data set vs. the statement made, and call "bullshit." It would be like including housecat scratches in a data set looking at tiger attacks.

Oh, you're an engineer. I'm sorry.

Fact is, your argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter if the gun was legal or not. It was in the house. Someone in that house either killed themselves or was killed by someone else in that house with that gun.

Again, the TObacco companies put warnings on their products, and were STILL held liable.

The Gun makers market their guns as home protection, when the presense of a gun makes the home a more dangerous place.

You are still missing the point. The study is used as ammunition against people keeping guns in thier home legally. However the data does not remove illegal guns from the data set, nor does it exclude crimes that occured outside the home. You yourself are saying it shows the gun is more dangerous in the home when the data DOES NOT show that.

It matters in terms of legality because people are using it as an argument for banning legal gun ownership. It shows them something they like, and they use it regardless of the fact that the methodology does not lend its use in the manner they are using it.

The study looks at only deaths, but ALL deaths caused by firearms, again, not just those inside your house. Yet it implies the gun is more fatal to those in the house, using numbers that include even shootings that didnt not occur in the house.

If your best reponse to this, is "well it was in a house at SOME point" then I can tell you are not going to be able to debate this logically, and im wasting my time.

 

[martybegan]

[



More assfacts that Joey makes up.

The king of chery pickers and posting his opinion as fact. Have a great day Joey.

So you can be butthurt all day?

Oh, wait, here's another study by medical professionals that found the same thing...

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.

"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

Well, he says only 12 times... I guess that's an improvement over Kellerman, who said 43.

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

 

[JoeB131]

You are still missing the point. The study is used as ammunition against people keeping guns in thier home legally. However the data does not remove illegal guns from the data set, nor does it exclude crimes that occured outside the home. You yourself are saying it shows the gun is more dangerous in the home when the data DOES NOT show that.

It matters in terms of legality because people are using it as an argument for banning legal gun ownership. It shows them something they like, and they use it regardless of the fact that the methodology does not lend its use in the manner they are using it.

The study looks at only deaths, but ALL deaths caused by firearms, again, not just those inside your house. Yet it implies the gun is more fatal to those in the house, using numbers that include even shootings that didnt not occur in the house.

If your best reponse to this, is "well it was in a house at SOME point" then I can tell you are not going to be able to debate this logically, and im wasting my time.

You're wasting your time because all you are doing is playing a round of "how to lie with statistics".

And, yeah, if a Teenage kid takes his gun out of his house and shoots himself because he listed to Nirvanna too many times, it doesn't matter if he shot himself at the park or on his ex-girlfriend's front lawn. The gun in the house facilitated that suicide.

This isn't complicated, guy. Countries that have banned private gun ownership or restrict it have less murder, less crime, less prisons, etc.

But what they don't have is a 12 billion dollar a year gun industry that markets a dangerous product to people who shouldn't have them.

 

[beretta304]

[



More assfacts that Joey makes up.

The king of chery pickers and posting his opinion as fact. Have a great day Joey.

So you can be butthurt all day?

Oh, wait, here's another study by medical professionals that found the same thing...

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence

Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.

"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

Well, he says only 12 times... I guess that's an improvement over Kellerman, who said 43.

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety
Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.


Where's the source and data?

Like I said, talking to you is like talking to a rock.

We're not going to repeat this every morning with you posting your opinions as facts.


Ignore List
bobcollum JoeB131

 

[JoeB131]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

 

[skookerasbil]

Why shouldn't gun makers be held liable like other manufacturers?

Because it would be gay.

 

[JoeB131]

[


Ignore List
bobcollum JoeB131

You know, when you "ignore" someone, like you said you were going to do yesterday, it usually helps to actually Ignore them,and not obsess over everything they say...

Just saying....

Hey, no problem, that disability check will be coming in any day now.

 

[martybegan]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

The reason it should not be included is that when usually stated, it is made to imply someone being accidentally shot, the classic "I shot my son by the fridge because i thought he was a burglar" story. The people who often use this study use it to make it appear you are going to shoot your cousin ed well before you shoot an intruder. Using suicides to bolster the ratio is intellectually dishonest if you intend to use the numbers this way.

 

[beretta304]

[


Ignore List
bobcollum JoeB131

You know, when you "ignore" someone, like you said you were going to do yesterday, it usually helps to actually Ignore them,and not obsess over everything they say...

Just saying....

Hey, no problem, that disability check will be coming in any day now.

My last reply to you just to show how ignorant you are...you may want to ask someone in the know what I do for a living and why I'm here.

The only one that has a disability is you. You're unable to tell the truth.

Want to stomp your feet and repeat the same lie you did yesterday about disablity.

See ...he makes it up. (That's for the posters who know you just lied again)

 

[skookerasbil]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

You fucking phoney..........for the New Year, this cheesedick changed his avatar to stop the verbal abuse from posing as a GOP guy. A total fraud........hard core left guy posing as a conservative.


gay

 

[beretta304]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

The reason it should not be included is that when usually stated, it is made to imply someone being accidentally shot, the classic "I shot my son by the fridge because i thought he was a burglar" story. The people who often use this study use it to make it appear you are going to shoot your cousin ed well before you shoot an intruder. Using suicides to bolster the ratio is intellectually dishonest if you intend to use the numbers this way.

You're doing a fine job refuting him. I just have no patience with him. This is what he does every topic he enters. He has no basis for what he posts. He posts opinions as facts and then just keeps repeating them. He knew a screwball that killed himself so therefore that holds through across the whole spectrum.

He can never admit he's wrong about anything.

 

[JoeB131]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

The reason it should not be included is that when usually stated, it is made to imply someone being accidentally shot, the classic "I shot my son by the fridge because i thought he was a burglar" story. The people who often use this study use it to make it appear you are going to shoot your cousin ed well before you shoot an intruder. Using suicides to bolster the ratio is intellectually dishonest if you intend to use the numbers this way.

Where is it "implied" that a sucide is anything but a suicide? You might INFER that, but no one IMPLIED that.

The point is, for every home intruder killed, you had 39 suicides, 3 domestic murders and 1 accident in the home, according to Kellerman.

But the Gun Industry markets it product like there is a hoarde of these criminals out there that you need protection from... and your gun is the only thing keeping you safe.

 

[beretta304]

[

and again it includes suicides, which skew the numbers. It also validates my critique of kellerman.

Are people who kill themselves less dead than people who are killed by others. Because, frankly, my neighbor who shot himself, he looked pretty dead to me at his funeral. (Although the undertaker did a nice job patching up the hole...)

You fucking phoney..........for the New Year, this cheesedick changed his avatar to stop the verbal abuse from posing as a GOP guy. A total fraud........hard core left guy posing as a conservative.


gay

Joey is as much an "Eisenhower Republican" as I am a staunch oBUMa supporter.

 

[skookerasbil]

Jerkoff gun grabbers.................


How has that UK gun ban been working?

•In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.
•Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.
•England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's.
•53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.





The UK Gun Ban - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com




Dont get caught up in the gayness of the limpwristed gun grabbing left.............nobody loves "gun bans" more than the bad guys and they are licking their chops these days.................

Get yourself a zombie killer now................


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2BvJzqeLp0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2BvJzqeLp0[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

[


You fucking phoney..........for the New Year, this cheesedick changed his avatar to stop the verbal abuse from posing as a GOP guy. A total fraud........hard core left guy posing as a conservative.]

Never said I was conservative or liberal... which I think are phony labels in any case that don't really mean anything. A "Conservative" wants to regulate the shit out of a lady's hoo-ha but wants there to be anything goes on guns...

Incidently, for anyone interested, my Avatar Plan is to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of Doctor Who, which I will do by changing my Avatar every month to reflect the actors who have portrayed The Doctor. So January will be William Hartnell (the Original Doctor), February will be Patrick Troughton, and so on until November with Matt Smith and the 50th Anniversary.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joey is as much an "Eisenhower Republican" as I am a staunch oBUMa supporter.

Well, here's the thing.

In 1950, Obama would have been a fine Republican.

You guys are the ones who took your party into batshit crazy land...

 

[beretta304]

Jerkoff gun grabbers.................


How has that UK gun ban been working?

•In the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.
•Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.
•England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's.
•53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.





The UK Gun Ban - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Guess who would wish he had a gun as the intruder climbs through his window...Joey. He'll never admit it. Maybe he can reason with the intruder and explain that if the intruder keeps that gun he might someday end up committing suicide.