Woman shot 3 times by 2 home invaders...able to return fire...and lives....

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

There are over 8 million CCW holders in the U.S.
I'd like to see some numbers on how many of them have accidentally killed themselves.

I think there are over 11 million.

You're correct. It's over 11.1 now.

There are about 600 accidental deaths a year so it would be a small percent.

You would think so.

 

[2aguy]

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

There are over 8 million CCW holders in the U.S.
I'd like to see some numbers on how many of them have accidentally killed themselves.

Most recent count is 11.1 million and that is low because many state don't require a government permit to carry....

 

[2aguy]

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

How about being very familiar with guns and gun culture for forty years?
In other words I see more of what goes on in the gun industry in a month than you will in your entire life.
And as any regular shooter will tell you...there are more noobs than ever at the range,and you see a crap load more women as well.

Yes....back in the 90s you never saw women at the range...now....they are all over the place....

 

[Andylusion]

Sweet. How did the home invaders get their guns?

What difference does it make? If you banned legal ways, and got them illegally... would that have been better? Would the bullets have hurt less?

 

[Andylusion]

I concur.

• Theoretically, knowledge that potential victims have access to firearms could increase the perceived cost of committing a crime to a potential perpetrator and thus prevent the crime from occurring. However, there does not seem to be credible evidence that higher levels of gun ownership and availability actually deter crime. A criminologist once claimed that publicized police programs to train citizens in gun use in Orlando (to prevent rape) and in Kansas City (to prevent robbery) led to reductions in crime.[80] However, a careful analysis of the data found no evidence that crime rates changed in either location after the training.[81] The deterrent effects of civilian gun ownership on burglary rates were supposedly shown by the experiences of Morton Grove, Illinois—after it banned handguns—and Kennesaw, Georgia— after it required that firearms be kept in all homes.[80] Again, a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.[82] Instead, in Morton Grove, the banning of handguns was actually followed by a large and statistically significant decrease in burglary reports.[81]
  
  One study found an association between lower crime rates in states with higher levels of household gun ownership.[83] But the gun ownership data for the analysis were not valid. The source of the data (Voter News Service) stated that the data could not justifiably be used to determine state-level gunownership levels or changes in gun ownership rates.
  Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot.[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates,[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates.[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less.[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot fo
  
  REPORT
  + QUOTEREPLY

• Jan 8, 2015#122

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

How about being very familiar with guns and gun culture for forty years?
In other words I see more of what goes on in the gun industry in a month than you will in your entire life.
And as any regular shooter will tell you...there are more noobs than ever at the range,and you see a crap load more women as well.

Ok... so one guy.... at one gun range.... who states his purely 'scientific' statement of "there are more noobs than ever at the range, and more women", is now divine conclusive proof that gun ownership is UP, whereas multi-year research into nation wide gun ownership.... well that's just opinion.

Now granted, I actually do think that gun ownership is up since 2008. I do. In fact, I purchased my gun because of Obama.

However, I don't assume that just because in my tiny little world, gun ownership has increased, means that it's Universal. And certainly not over the long history. Comparing decade over decade, it's very clear gun ownership is down.

I get it... your opinion is, everyone on the survey lied.

I don't think you'll convince many people that Internet Bob knows all, and surveys over 40 years are all lies.

 

[Andylusion]

This is why you are stupid beyond comprehension.

He threw out a general, if you own a pool as a hypothetical. And you respond with "I don't own a pool".

Either you are the biggest idiot I have ever debated with, or you are a troll. (And you don't need to respond with, I don't own a bridge). The biggest irony, is that you use the moniker "Brain". I have a name change suggestion, how about "Brain Stem"?

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

 

[Brain357]

that issue is going to be debated for a long time.....however......what has turned out to be even more important.....increased levels of gun ownership, as more Americans not only buy guns, but also carry them for self defense, have not led to more crime......in fact, as more Americans have bought and carry guns.....the gun crime rate and the accidental gun death rate have gone down...substantially, and not up, as the anti gunners predicted they would....

Most gun sales are to people who already own. Ownership is down.

What a load of horse hockey.

I've provided a survey, what you have to counter?

How about being very familiar with guns and gun culture for forty years?
In other words I see more of what goes on in the gun industry in a month than you will in your entire life.
And as any regular shooter will tell you...there are more noobs than ever at the range,and you see a crap load more women as well.

Yes....back in the 90s you never saw women at the range...now....they are all over the place....

There are the same number of ranges in my area as there were 20 years ago.

 

[Brain357]

What point have I made that is wrong? You seem not very smart to me.

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

 

[Andylusion]

That they showed up armed, but it was her fault for opening fire. You are an enemy to liberty. You blame the fucking victim, for not handing over the goods and sending Obamas sons on their way.

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Brain....the story doesn't say who shot first......

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

if the home owner shot first she had every right to do so.

The scum bag pieces of shit were threatening her safety the second they forced their way in

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

What are the odds of that happening compared to someone accidently being shot and killed? How often is the defender the only one shot like the woman in this thread?

don't know
don't care

I choose to be able to defend myself and will support anyone who does.

If you choose to be defenseless that's fine with me

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well....you have never been robbed hence there is no reason to be armed.......nice for you....

I wasn't to concerned about being robbed either....right up till the time it happened.
Thank God for Remington.

It must be nice to be a liberal.....you know each day what is going to happen before it happens....so they never have to worry about being attacked.....hence, they don't need guns

A gun is not always the best thing to have. Look at all the accidental shootings. Studies show you are more likely to be shot if you carry. Cases where they really save a life seem more rare than acidental shootings. Most people are probably safer without.

and you are more likely to drown if you own a pool.

That so called statistical analysis is pure crap.

I don't have a pool.

and you don't have guns either right so what are you worried about?

 

[Brain357]

No I am saying her having a gun may be the only reason she was shot. The police seem to think they were there to rob, not kill her. And the police know more than you or I. So in this case she may have endangered herself by having a gun.

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

 

[Brain357]

Nope that's why I said make you wonder. I'd be curious to hear more details. Especially who started shooting first.

if the home owner shot first she had every right to do so.

The scum bag pieces of shit were threatening her safety the second they forced their way in

Yes but that may be why she got shot. In which case she would have been safer not being armed.

If you want to take the chance of being unarmed in while criminals invade your house that's your choice.

It didn't end too well for the Petit family in CT

Ghastly Details In Conn. Home Invasion - CBS News

So now tell me you would still rather be defenseless.

What are the odds of that happening compared to someone accidently being shot and killed? How often is the defender the only one shot like the woman in this thread?

don't know
don't care

I choose to be able to defend myself and will support anyone who does.

If you choose to be defenseless that's fine with me

Yes you don't care about what really happens. You just argue from emotion and paranoia.

 

[Judicial review]

Sweet. How did the home invaders get their guns?

Not fucking sweet you retarded asshole. She was shot 3 fucking times! That is fucking painful and she could have fucking died due to blood loss. Jesus, you fucking morons need to grow a conscience and get out of the basement and meet good decent people.

 

[2aguy]

So you're telling me the police said that the guy didnt intend to use his weapon while committing robbery? I call bullshit.
Because we of course know people never get shot while being robbed...
If someone confronts you with a firearm you ALWAYS assume they are willing to use it. I dont care if it's a criminal or a cop,the only difference is how you react to em.

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Yeah...brana was wrong...



Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable - St. Louis gun rights Examiner.com

More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:

The linked to article pointing out how brana was wrong....

Armed and Vulnerable - Reason.com

The one explanation Branas et al. don’t mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest the authors come to acknowledging that possibility is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

And again....keeping in mind the other numbers involved.....there are on average 8-9,000 gun murders a year in the United States....there are on average 1.6 million times a year a gun is used to stop violent crime and save lives....also...more Americans are buying and carrying guns...and the gun murder rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....so brana is full of crap......

and another look at brana....

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT


The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

The problems with geography and control selection are not insurmountable. A classic study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4 pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality occurred “on asubsequent date, but on the same day of the week and at a time as close as possible to the exact time of day of the accident [italics retained]”2(p657) as control participants for each case participant.

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results. Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship. The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters. Attacks by strangers are common, accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated assaults reported by males and 34.7% of those reported by females.3 The authors should present separate results for assaults independent of and related to prior personal involvement between victims and shooters.

And another look at why brana's study is wrong....

A Useless Study on Gun Possession - Forbes

But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member. The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted. This study cannot be considered informative, except perhaps about the quality of studies the American Journal of Public Health accepts.

 

[Brain357]

Being armed yourself makes you more likely to be shot.

Do I want to spend my life being a victim and a coward, but with less risk of being killed?

When you look around the world at other modern countries, and see that we have tons of crime relative to them... I think this wussy pathetic "don't be armed, because you are less likely to be shot!" idea is the reason.

I'd rather go down fighting.

That is your choice. It really depends on the situation. I wouldn't want to get shot over my wallet. I just think people should know the facts.

Just be prepared to be a victim for the rest of your life.

Family Says Friendly 20-year-old Shot for No Reason - FOX16.com

See, if you could make the case that not being armed would guarantee not being shot.... I'd be on your side of the argument.

But completely an utterly defenseless people are shot, stabbed, raped, and killed all the time.

The difference between Daniel in this story, and the lady in the OP story, is that the lady was armed and could fight back, Daniel was unarmed, and couldn't. Daniel is dead. The lady is not.

I just think people should know the facts, too.

I've never been a victim.

There are very few guarantees. You can't guarantee that carrying a gun will keep you from being shot. In fact it makes you more likely to be shot:
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed - science-in-society - 06 October 2009 - New Scientist

I can guarantee if you don't own a gun that you won't accidently shoot yourself or another innocent person. More people are accidently shot each year than are criminals in defense.

I don't think being armed would have really helped Daniel. I don't think he was expecting them to kill him. In this case the criminal would have a big advantage.

How about this example:
Las Vegas Cop Killers Were Husband-Wife Team - ABC News

The armed guy in the Walmart was the only one shot and killed.

There are several countries with few guns and much lower crime rates than us. You don't need guns for people to not be raped and killed, that's just silly.

Yeah...brana was wrong...



Holding purveyors of anti-gun junk science accountable - St. Louis gun rights Examiner.com

More recently, an article by Charles Branas and others, published in the American Journal of Public Health, claimed that a person in possession of a gun is 4.46 times more likely to be shot than one who is not. Jacob Sullum, of Reason.com, pointed out a fatal flaw with the "reasoning" the authors used:

The linked to article pointing out how brana was wrong....

Armed and Vulnerable - Reason.com

The one explanation Branas et al. don’t mention is that people who anticipate violent confrontations—such as drug dealers, frequently robbed bodega owners, and women with angry ex-boyfriends—might be especially likely to possess guns, just as people who jump out of airplanes are especially likely to possess parachutes. The closest the authors come to acknowledging that possibility is their admission, toward the end of the article, that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around.

And again....keeping in mind the other numbers involved.....there are on average 8-9,000 gun murders a year in the United States....there are on average 1.6 million times a year a gun is used to stop violent crime and save lives....also...more Americans are buying and carrying guns...and the gun murder rate and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up....so brana is full of crap......

and another look at brana....

FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT


The study by Branas et al.1 contains errors in design and execution that make it difficult to determine the meaning of their findings.

Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.

The study does not control for time and place. The authors invoke stray bullets to argue that residents of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are at equal risk for being shot, no matter where they are and what they are doing. This ignores the fact that violence is not randomly distributed and is unfair to Philadelphia.

The control group is inappropriate, as was probably guaranteed by its selection from all adult Philadelphians. There were large differences between case participants and control participants in prior criminal history and alcohol or drug involvement, all of which influence gun-carrying behavior and risk for violent victimization. Personal and geographic differences compounded one another: 83% of shootings occurred outdoors, yet while those shootings were occuring, 91% of control participants, arguably at lower risk already for personal reasons, were indoors. A list could easily be made of likely differences between case participants and control participants that were not addressed.

The problems with geography and control selection are not insurmountable. A classic study of alcohol use among adult pedestrian fatalities in Manhattan enrolled the first 4 pedestrians reaching the site where the fatality occurred “on asubsequent date, but on the same day of the week and at a time as close as possible to the exact time of day of the accident [italics retained]”2(p657) as control participants for each case participant.

Branas et al. have omitted critical detail from their results. Assaults can be independent of any prior relationship between perpetrator and victim—a would-be robber spies a prospect emerging from a bar—or can occur in the context of, and perhaps because of, some prior relationship. The association between gun possession and risk of being assaulted or shot may differ greatly between these 2 types of encounters. Attacks by strangers are common, accounting for 50.5% of robberies and aggravated assaults reported by males and 34.7% of those reported by females.3 The authors should present separate results for assaults independent of and related to prior personal involvement between victims and shooters.

And another look at why brana's study is wrong....

A Useless Study on Gun Possession - Forbes

But clearly even after including these measures all else is not equal. The study could not control for whether the individuals were in a situation where they thought they would be in danger. The study could not control for whether the individual was the kind of person who thought that someone they know may be planning on trying to shoot them. They could control for frequency of prior arrest, but not whether the individual was an active gang member. The obvious selection bias is so problematic here that it is shocking the study was even attempted. This study cannot be considered informative, except perhaps about the quality of studies the American Journal of Public Health accepts.

I don't see how any of those arguments against the study are valid. It is a really good study, you should read it. They actually do things that your sources are claiming they do not. For instance the study is only adults in an attempt to keep out gang activity.

 

[2aguy]

As to the idea that gun ownership is on the decline....that is a gun control dream...not the reality....they want to change the reality so they can convince weak willed politicians to pass their agenda....

Debunking Mother Jones 10 Pro-Gun Myths Shot Down - The Truth About Guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.



So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

 

[Brain357]

As to the idea that gun ownership is on the decline....that is a gun control dream...not the reality....they want to change the reality so they can convince weak willed politicians to pass their agenda....

Debunking Mother Jones 10 Pro-Gun Myths Shot Down - The Truth About Guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.



So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

I don't think you can claim that survey is bad, but then stand strongly by the surveys that clearly overestimate the number of gun defenses.

 

[2aguy]

As to the idea that gun ownership is on the decline....that is a gun control dream...not the reality....they want to change the reality so they can convince weak willed politicians to pass their agenda....

Debunking Mother Jones 10 Pro-Gun Myths Shot Down - The Truth About Guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.



So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

I don't think you can claim that survey is bad, but then stand strongly by the surveys that clearly overestimate the number of gun defenses.

I have 40 years of studies that show my average number of 1.6 million, done by different researchers, both private and public and by anti gunners as well as neutral parties...this is one study that was easily shown to be wrong.......

 

[2aguy]

As to the idea that gun ownership is on the decline....that is a gun control dream...not the reality....they want to change the reality so they can convince weak willed politicians to pass their agenda....

Debunking Mother Jones 10 Pro-Gun Myths Shot Down - The Truth About Guns

Myth #9: More and more Americans are becoming gun owners.
Fact-check: More guns are being sold, but they’re owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
• About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
• Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

Let me illustrate how MJ and other organizations arrive at this “shrinking number” nonsense for gun ownership. The numbers are based on a phone survey conducted by calling the landline in people’s homes and asking if they own any guns.

Do you see the problem there?

(A) Landine phones are going the way of the dodo. Almost no one in my generation pays for one in their home, and a shrinking number of the older generation are doing the same. Cell phones are the new way to communicate, and those aren’t included in the polls.

(B) How would you feel if you received a call from a random stranger claiming to be from a polling agency and asking how much jewelry you have in your home? Or how much cash you carry around? Or if you leave your back door unlocked at night? This is especially frightening if you realize that land-line phone numbers all have an address associated with them. Is it really a polling agency calling or a burglar doing some recon work before stealing all your stuff? How can you tell the difference?

I just don’t trust those numbers. What I do trust are the ever-increasing numbers of people showing up at shooting ranges and the constant growth in the firearms industry. Solid figures that represent actual growth, not just conjecture. And anyway, since the MJ article came out, even Gallup has seen a uptick in those numbers.



So, in fact, that entire statement is now null and void. A lie, if you will. Gun ownership is indeed on the rise.

I don't think you can claim that survey is bad, but then stand strongly by the surveys that clearly overestimate the number of gun defenses.

I have 40 years of studies that show my average number of 1.6 million, done by different researchers, both private and public and by anti gunners as well as neutral parties...this is one study that was easily shown to be wrong.......

Were you talking the brana crap or the ownership crap?