Time for Gun Safety Advocates to Abandon Their Strategy

[2aguy]

Earlier you said you had guns to protect your family. Although you're adamantly opposed to any site that discredits guns in any way. His first study might really help your family in ways you might not have thought of. Simply having guns in your house is putting you at risk in various ways. www.thetrace.org will a gun keep your family safe ? Here's what the evidence says. April 7th 2020. Another site may also help you and yours, https://www.hsph.harvardedu>news Do guns make us safer ? Science says no / news.

Oh good…more research done by anti-gun fanatics…..

I explained this to you…..

when you look at anti-gun research, you need to understand that truth, facts and reality do not support what they believe….so they lie………

The homes they study? They fail to highlight the homes they study are abnormal…they have criminals, drug users, and alcoholics with long histories of police contact and domestic abuse……..they are not normal….

so sell that BS to Biden voters

 

[2aguy]

You people have had an agenda all along. America is finally waking up to your agenda, and they want no part of it.

Yeah…no.,…what about AR-15 bans?

a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low.

Support for a ban has fallen to 50 percent, while 45 percent oppose it, and according to the survey, “This is the lowest level of support among registered voters for a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons since February 2013 when the question was first asked by the Quinnipiac University Poll.” Four years ago, 67 percent supported a ban and 29 percent opposed the idea.

Narrative Fail: Poll Finds Public Support For An 'Assault Weapons' Ban At An All-Time Low - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ From the Second Amendment Foundation Amid the renewed clamor by anti-gunners for a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Quinnipiac University poll showing public support for such a ban to be at an all-time low...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[Stann]

Oh good…more research done by anti-gun fanatics…..

I explained this to you…..

when you look at anti-gun research, you need to understand that truth, facts and reality do not support what they believe….so they lie………

The homes they study? They fail to highlight the homes they study are abnormal…they have criminals, drug users, and alcoholics with long histories of police contact and domestic abuse……..they are not normal….

so sell that BS to Biden voters

Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.

 

[Stann]

Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.

Do you really want to be that ignorant. You said you were concerned about your family and their safety. I wouldn't just miss any information that might help me just because of any prejudices that I might have.

 

[Stann]

Do you really want to be that ignorant. You said you were concerned about your family and their safety. I wouldn't just miss any information that might help me just because of any prejudices that I might have.

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

 

[Stann]

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

Finally you keep mentioning gangs and criminals. Do you live in a high crime area ? Why not move somewhere safer. Like I said I live in a small town, I don't even lock my doors. Most of my neighbors do the same thing. We do not live in fear, we simply live.

 

[Batcat]

Gun safety? Uh, do what? This ain't got jack-fucking-shit to do with "gun safety". This is all about banning gun ownership. Either an outright legislative prohibition, or by making it too expensive and/or too complicated to own a gun. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.

New York is a perfect example: only the very rich and the very politically connected (one in the same?) can get a CCW permit in that state.

In California, it costs $450 to apply for a CCW permit and there's no guarantee that you'll actually get the permit.

In Florida Concealed Weapons Permits are much more reasonable in price. Florida may also soon go to Constitutional Carry.

The Captain's Journal » Florida permitless carry bill coming next legislative session, top Republican says

Florida Concealed Carry [Updated: 1/16/2023]

Find answers to all of your Florida concealed carry and firearm law questions. How to get a Texas Concealed Weapon License and more.

www.usacarry.com

How much does a Florida Concealed Weapon License cost?
The initial fee for a Florida Concealed Weapon License for residents and non-residents is $102 which includes a $42 fingerprint processing fee and a $60 initial license fee.

Renewals for residents cost $50 and for non-residents is $92 which includes a $42 fingerprint processing fee.

The cost is $15 to obtain a revised or duplicate copy of your Florida Concealed Weapon License.

There is no $42 fingerprint processing fee for Active Florida Law Enforcement Officers. If you are a Florida Law Enforcement Officer that has retired within a year, there are no initial fees. If you have been retired for more than one year, the initial fee is $72 which includes a $40 fingerprint processing fee and a $30 initial license fee. Renewals for all retired Florida Law Enforcement Officers cost $30.

There are no charges whatsoever for active Judges.

The initial and renewal fees for a Consular Security Official are $300.

 

[LuckyDuck]

1) Make it illegal for the NRA to donate to (bribe) politicians.
2) Gun manufacturers should be sued by the families of the victims who are killed by their guns. Run them out of business.
3) Ban AR-15s and any other semi-automatic weapons. These guns are made to slaughter human beings quickly and efficiently. That's all they are good for.
4) Repeal the 2nd Amendment. This will take time, but it's a goal.

1. Make it illegal for companies that sell items like: Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians.
2. Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
3. As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
4. Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.

 

[Ms. Turquoise]

1. Make it illegal for companies that sell items like: Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians.
2. Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
3. As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
4. Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.

Translation: "I don't have anything intelligent to say. But, I had to say something".

 

[2aguy]

Any good research is done in an unbiased manner. It doesn't matter if the researchers doing it are pro-gun or Anti-gun, they strive for the truth. The data, the statistics verify the results. You can't make a research study personal in any way.

No....anti-gun fanatics do research with the intent of pushing gun control.

 

[2aguy]

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

What was the pool of gun owners used for the research? Typically, the anti-gunners who focus on guns in the home use the homes with criminals, drug addicts and alcoholics as well as people with histories of domestic violence....they then say this is their representative examples of gun owners.....

 

[2aguy]

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

I showed you how the study you pointed out on carrying a gun making you more likely to be a victim of gun violence......and they used criminals in high crime areas as their representative sample...

You have learned nothing...

The first study you linked to.......and how they skewed their results...

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest.

At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs,

outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided.

Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

http://[URL='https://www.ncbi.nlm.n...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

[/URL]

This was the first study you tried to use to push your anti-gun agenda............

What makes you think the other studies by rabid anti-gunners will be any different in their techniques?

 

[2aguy]

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

I put in "Does owning a gun make you safer...."

The first links are to anti-gun B.S..........from the Trace....which cites studies by david hemenway, and arthur kellerman....two rabid anti-gun fanatics...

So again.....you haven't learned anything....

Here is Kellerman and his shoddy, biased work...

Kellerman who did the study that came up with the 43 times more likelyto be killed by your own gun myth, was forced to retract his original 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.

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;

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

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

 

[2aguy]

When I looked up this information I did not say give me gun information that would indicate guns are counterproductive to the safety of my family. I simply asked the question. Does owning a gun make me and my family safer ? And almost every study that came up indicated that they did not. There were many. Only one which was the second one I listed, said it was basically 50/50 whether it helped or not. There are drawbacks with everything. If I owned a gun, I would want to know everything about them, the good and the bad, the pros and the cons, however you want to look at it. Physical life in this world is never easy. Few are fortunate to get by without much misfortune and injury is a constant possibility as well as death.

Another look at Kellerman who was cited in the first link that came up....

As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home.

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

These are the "normal" gun owners that they use to show that owning a gun is more dangerous for the gun owner......

 

[Stann]

1. Make it illegal for companies that sell items like: Knives, Hammers, Cars, Trucks, Baseball Bats, Boots, Screwdrivers and any other items that have been used to kill people with, to donate to politicians.
2. Sue those same companies listed above when someone kills another person(s) with those items.
3. As more than five times as many people are murdered with knives than rifles, ban the sale of all knives.
4. Deport all pro-Marxists as they want only a one-party government.

The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.

 

[2aguy]

The guy you responded to had it right. The proliferation of guns has to be reduced, a ban on further production would be great, then you can get to the rest of them without them being replenished.

yes…you are a fascist….after you get the guns when do you start digging the mass graves?

 

[Stann]

yes…you are a fascist….after you get the guns when do you start digging the mass graves?

The odds strongly favor you getting shot before I will ever get shot. You frightened little weasel.

 

[Stann]

The odds strongly favor you getting shot before I will ever get shot. You frightened little weasel.

You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows

 

[Stann]

You keep condemning my studies, say they're from a liberal point of view. Well that's just not true they're from a scientific point of view. Facts really matter in this world. Time.com.ideas.guns June 3rd, 2022 316 p.m. EDT owning gun supports people in your home at greater risk of being killed/new study shows

I bet you didn't know that 84% of the murders in homes are women.

 

[Stann]

I bet you didn't know that 84% of the murders in homes are women.

The last murder in my town here in Nebraska was in 1983. I like my odds here. I didn't work today, but I helped my neighbor tear down his old barn. He agreed if I helped him he'd give me all the weathered boards. I'm going to clean them up and put them on one of the walls in my living room. That's the kind of things I work on, on my days off, besides gardening I have a super garden.