Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/16/2004 8:00:44 PM EST
My friend who is anti gun just told me this was a cold hard fact. I would like some proof either way. Anyone have any sources for facts?

Thanks guys
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:02:26 PM EST
cough BULLSHIT cough
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:03:57 PM EST
wow, someone I know told me this a while back. I just fucking laughed at them. I can't remember who it was though.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:04:58 PM EST
I'll take my chances by having guns.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:05:09 PM EST
A gun owner is more likely to have their gun used against them than a non-owner (hint hint).

This arguement is, to me, like the one about suicide: Someone who owns a gun is more likely to use it to kill themselves than someone who doesn't own a gun.

Stupid logic I know.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:06:37 PM EST
Tell your anti friend to come up with documented "cold hard facts" to prove what he/she/it says. They make the allegation, they prove it.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:06:48 PM EST
The same can be said for knives. Tell him to empty his kitchen.....
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:06:53 PM EST
I know its BS. He is a semi intelligent guy, but he needs to pull his head out when it comes to firearms. I have prepared a lot of info to show him the light. This is the last piece of info I am looking for.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:07:59 PM EST
thats why i carry
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:08:05 PM EST
It shoud read "Illegal guns, kept in CRIMINAL'S homes, are most likely to be used against you"
And if you don't keep a gun in YOUR home, they can use it to do whatever they want.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:08:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By SexualChocolate:
My friend who is anti gun brain dead just told me this was a cold hard factbull shit. I would like some proof either way. Anyone have any sources for facts?

Thanks guys

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:08:54 PM EST
No no! It's true. My wife uses my guns against me every time she complains about how much I spend on them.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:09:16 PM EST
The information you seek is readily available on such web sites as the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Comittee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, NRA-ILA, etc. Just do a search if you're serious.

ummmm, wait, I think I caught something from somebody else on this thread....

cough BULLSHIT cough cough

Please report back with your findings after collecting information at the sites mentioned above.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:09:29 PM EST
I believe that piece of BS is from the Kellerman study. It was basically only true if you were a criminal or associated with criminals. You could probably google up the research or search on www.rkba.org/

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:09:51 PM EST
From the GOA Fact Sheet:

Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years.148 Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household."149

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."

Tell your friend to look past the predigested BS spewed by the gun-banners and get the "cold hard fact"s.

Alpine
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:12:42 PM EST
Guns kept in the home are more likely to be used against you....

More likely than what? Guns not stored at home?

Since the firearms are at home, a place where it is possible, no matter how remote, that the gun, a criminal, and you can all be together at the same time, then yes, it is more likely.

If you take any one of the three variables away... the gun, the criminal, or you, the possibility drops to about 0.000000.

Even when the firearm is stored at home, I suspect the actual odds of the firearm being used against you are so small that it was better to word the 'fact' as is instead of putting in actual data.

Remember....
There are lies,
Damned lies
and Statistics.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:14:07 PM EST
As far as I remember the statistic is correct since a couple of assumptions that are nonsensical are made:
A gun is 17 times more likely to harm a member of your family than to kill an armed intruder!
1) Harm a member of your family. Not kill. Just harm.
2) Statistic includes suicides.
3) Kill the intruder. Wounding or scaring off isn't suficient to make the statistic.
4) The intruder has to be armed in the first place. If he's not he won't make the statistic either.

Well, you can see where I'm going. Basic problem with all statistics. You can prove or disprove whatever you want using statistics. You all remember math class, right?!


I think the whole statistic turns around by 500% if you adjust some comon sense parameters....

Food for thought.

LRdrvr
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:16:08 PM EST
Kellermann is junk science at its best. He chose a suburb where drugs and
crime were much higher than in the average population. Moreover, he never
accepted to include reasons why family members shot each other- for example
women killing abusive husbands in self defense (which wasn't uncommon there).

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:18:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
I'll take my chances by having guns.





+1
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:18:26 PM EST
Just take out your pistol and shoot the fucker in his knees. Than look at him and say: "Damn, your right!"


SGatr15
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:18:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By DavidC:
I believe that piece of BS is from the Kellerman study. It was basically only true if you were a criminal or associated with criminals. You could probably google up the research or search on www.rkba.org/




That's a safe bet. If they use the 43 times line then you know for a fact it's Kellerman they are refering to whether or not that know it.

Here is one of many articles that crush the Kellerman study.

www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:20:34 PM EST
I no longer bother arguing with imbeciles.
Life is too short for that.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:23:53 PM EST
The "analysis" that VPC talking point is based on includes Suicides by Firearm.
And something like the vast majority of Murders are committed by family or acquaintances of the Victim - so the correct response is "No shit, and 99% of auto-related deaths happen in cars. So fucking what?"
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:35:40 PM EST
I guess I should keep mine outside.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:40:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Just take out your pistol and shoot the fucker in his knees. Than look at him and say: "Damn, your right!"


SGatr15



Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:45:52 PM EST

Originally Posted By SexualChocolate:
My friend who is anti gun just told me this was a cold hard fact. I would like some proof either way. Anyone have any sources for facts?

Thanks guys




The key is that the clause is missing its end ... more likely than WHAT ? Than guns NOT stored in the home? Well no duh genius. More likely to kill you than a boulder in a rockslide? More likely to kill you than Ted Kennedy's car?

MAKE THEM FINISH THE COMPARISON
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 8:51:10 PM EST
Hey wasn't there some one on here that got slapped down, And there gun taken from them not to long ago?

HMMMMMMMMM
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:01:33 PM EST
probably true

also probably true:

NOT having one when you need one will get you killed anyway

just keep the badguys AWAY from you guns; just give em the bullets
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:03:43 PM EST
Now is that ME YOU or YOU YOU ?

MT
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:16:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By SexualChocolate:
My friend who is anti gun just told me this was a cold hard fact. I would like some proof either way. Anyone have any sources for facts?

Thanks guys



This is based on either a JAMA or NEJM study that has since been exposed by John Lott. They did the study on 400 homicides in Baltimore or something, and they counted ANY firearm in the house as a contributing factor, whether the weapon was OWNED by the person killed or not. This means that if a bad guy busted into the house with a 9mm, they counted THAT as a weapon "in your home".

Pretty bogus stuff.

In only 8 of the murder cases studied was the weapon used to commit the crime ACTUALLY OWNED by the victim....

More Guns Less Crime has a more detailed rebuttal.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 3:29:03 AM EST
Why don't criminals end up having THEIR guns used against them?
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:14:18 AM EST
If that were true I should have been killed daily for about thirty five years.

rgg
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:19:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 5:21:05 AM EST by IamtheNRA]
Good site for the FACTS: www.guncite.com

Enjoy!
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:21:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 5:22:13 AM EST by knightsar]




Having a defensive firearm is like having nuclear weapons, you hope you never have to use them but you

sleep better at night knowing you have them and you are protected. Lets get real in this person's

mind exits a perfect world where everybody holds hands and we all sing happy songs.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:22:21 AM EST
Studies also show that people who break into a home that has guns are more likely to be shot than a home that doesn't have a gun.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:27:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2004 5:28:21 AM EST by osprey21]
Cold hard fact... your friend is a maroon.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:36:04 AM EST
This arguement probably makes sense when you're talking about a crackhouse. The biggest distortion in these stastics that the anti-gunners use is that they don't filter for preexisting criminal behaviors. They talk about how many "children" are killed with guns - but don't tell you that their statistics consider anyone under the age of 21 a "child" and most of the homicides they count involve gang activity. Fact is, the majority of people who suffer from gunshot wounds are convicted felons - every study bears this out.

I wouldn't be surprised if something similar is going on with this anti-gun cliche.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:42:06 AM EST
Car owners are more likely to drive to work, than non-car owner, who are more likely to take a bus to work.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:44:02 AM EST
Someone who drives a car is more likely to die in an automobile accident.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:45:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:51:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By Alpine:
From the GOA Fact Sheet:

Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years.148 Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household."149

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."

Tell your friend to look past the predigested BS spewed by the gun-banners and get the "cold hard fact"s.

Alpine



Well done Alpine.

I guess if you tell a lie often enough, some will start to believe it.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:53:48 AM EST
Statement:

"A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than be used against an intruder."

Truth:

This is a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county, that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else. Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one". The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[35] Kellermann and Reay, the authors of the study have stated themselves that "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.."[35] should be included as a benefit. BUT, when they calculated their comparison they did NOT include those cases. They therefore undercounted protection uses by at least 500 times.[36] If the purpose is to compare defensive uses verses misuse, all defensive uses should be counted, not just the 0.2% of time when a defensive use results in the death of an attacker. You measure defensive uses by lives saved, not criminals killed, after all, the purpose of self defense is to prevent or stop a criminal attack, not kill the attacker. Homicides that were found to be self-defense in a court of law were counted as criminal homicides by this study, thus over stating the number of criminal homicides, and under stating the number of self-defense homicides. In addition, homicides committed by armed intruders are included in the criminal homicides statistic.



"Someone you know" is often described as friends or even "loved ones", but in reality this includes rival gang members, drug dealers, abusive spouses and acquaintances, and so on. Those who proclaim the 43-1 statistics will often imply that only dear friends, loved family members, and small innocent children are the ones being killed, an obviously misleading statement.



The study failed to distinguish between households or environs populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low indeed. In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.



The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year. The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1. A study by Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser shows Canadians use guns in self-defense against assailants more than 32,000 times a year.


34]American Rifleman, August 1993, Pg42-44, "Kids and Guns" by David Kopel.

[35]"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986): 1557-1560

[36]"Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Professor Gary Kleck.

[37] US federal law, 18 USC 922(g).


Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:54:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By OFFSHORE:
cough BULLSHIT cough

+1
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 5:56:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By cgj:
No no! It's true. My wife uses my guns against me every time she complains about how much I spend on them.

+1
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:09:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By cgj:
No no! It's true. My wife uses my guns against me every time she complains about how much I spend on them.



That's interesting. My wife does too.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:16:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Statement:

"A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than be used against an intruder."

Truth:

This is a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county, that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else. Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one". The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[35] Kellermann and Reay, the authors of the study have stated themselves that "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.."[35] should be included as a benefit. BUT, when they calculated their comparison they did NOT include those cases. They therefore undercounted protection uses by at least 500 times.[36] If the purpose is to compare defensive uses verses misuse, all defensive uses should be counted, not just the 0.2% of time when a defensive use results in the death of an attacker. You measure defensive uses by lives saved, not criminals killed, after all, the purpose of self defense is to prevent or stop a criminal attack, not kill the attacker. Homicides that were found to be self-defense in a court of law were counted as criminal homicides by this study, thus over stating the number of criminal homicides, and under stating the number of self-defense homicides. In addition, homicides committed by armed intruders are included in the criminal homicides statistic.



"Someone you know" is often described as friends or even "loved ones", but in reality this includes rival gang members, drug dealers, abusive spouses and acquaintances, and so on. Those who proclaim the 43-1 statistics will often imply that only dear friends, loved family members, and small innocent children are the ones being killed, an obviously misleading statement.



The study failed to distinguish between households or environs populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low indeed. In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.



The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year. The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1. A study by Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser shows Canadians use guns in self-defense against assailants more than 32,000 times a year.


34]American Rifleman, August 1993, Pg42-44, "Kids and Guns" by David Kopel.

[35]"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986): 1557-1560

[36]"Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Professor Gary Kleck.

[37] US federal law, 18 USC 922(g).





Great post! I knew there was evidence to back that up, thanks for finding it!

One of the great under reported side effects of the 2nd Amendment is how it leads to an element of "self-correction" among the criminal population. One criminal kills another criminal, leading (hopefully!) to the elimination of two criminals from the general population. The only downside is when you use this arguement, libs will accuse you of racism.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:30:31 AM EST
You are more likely to be killed in a car if you are riding in one....
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 6:56:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By SexualChocolate:
My friend who is anti gun just told me this was a cold hard fact. I would like some proof either way. Anyone have any sources for facts?

Thanks guys



Yea, proof would be good.
Unfortunatly, nearly all incidnets where a firearm is used defensively are never reported. Thus, devinative proof is unavailable.

Anyone arguing for peace & safety by advocating intentional weakness is a fool with a herd sheep's mentality. These people are wishfully hoping that no one will take advantage of them, and doing their best to increase their individual chances by increasing the size of the disarmed herd. In other words, you & I shuld be helpless also.
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:03:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
You are more likely to be killed in a car if you are riding in one....


Yep.



Originally Posted By jblachly:
The key is that the clause is missing its end ... more likely than WHAT ? Than guns NOT stored in the home? Well no duh genius. More likely to kill you than a boulder in a rockslide? More likely to kill you than Ted Kennedy's car?

MAKE THEM FINISH THE COMPARISON


Double yep.

Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:06:06 AM EST
[sarcasm] It’s also a well known fact that guns, like most inanimate objects, have minds of their own and tend to turn on their owners when they’re least expecting. [/sarcasm]
Link Posted: 9/17/2004 7:07:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lord_Grey_Boots:
Statement:

"A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than be used against an intruder."

Truth:

This is a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county, that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else. Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one". The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[35] Kellermann and Reay, the authors of the study have stated themselves that "cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm [and] cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed.."[35] should be included as a benefit. BUT, when they calculated their comparison they did NOT include those cases. They therefore undercounted protection uses by at least 500 times.[36] If the purpose is to compare defensive uses verses misuse, all defensive uses should be counted, not just the 0.2% of time when a defensive use results in the death of an attacker. You measure defensive uses by lives saved, not criminals killed, after all, the purpose of self defense is to prevent or stop a criminal attack, not kill the attacker. Homicides that were found to be self-defense in a court of law were counted as criminal homicides by this study, thus over stating the number of criminal homicides, and under stating the number of self-defense homicides. In addition, homicides committed by armed intruders are included in the criminal homicides statistic.



"Someone you know" is often described as friends or even "loved ones", but in reality this includes rival gang members, drug dealers, abusive spouses and acquaintances, and so on. Those who proclaim the 43-1 statistics will often imply that only dear friends, loved family members, and small innocent children are the ones being killed, an obviously misleading statement.



The study failed to distinguish between households or environs populated by people with violent, criminal, or substance-abuse histories -- where the risk of death is very high -- versus households inhabited by more civil folk (for example, people who avoid high-risk activities like drug dealing, gang banging and wife beating) -- where the risk is very low indeed. In actuality, negligent adults allow fatal but avoidable accidents; and homicides are perpetrated mostly by people with histories of violence or abuse, people who are identifiably and certifiably at ~high risk~ for misadventure.



The Hart Poll in 1981 found 644,000 defensive uses with handguns per year. The Mauser Poll in 1990 found 691,000 defensive uses per year. The Field Poll in California in 1978 found 1.2 million handgun defensive uses per year. The Time/CNN Poll in 1989 found over 908,000 defensive uses per year. Gary Kleck estimated the yearly defensive use of firearms by civilians to be at about 1,000,000 per year. A more recent study by Gary Kleck put the yearly total at approximately 2,400,000 defensive uses. Yet the total deaths by firearm in the USA only runs about 25,000 to 30,000 per year, and that includes accidents, murders, suicides and self defense homicides. That means a gun is 30-40 times more likely to defend against an assault or other crime than kill anybody. As accidental firearm's related deaths is about 1400 per year, including hunting accidents, the defensive use verses accidental death ratio is about 700-800 to 1. A study by Simon Fraser University professor Gary Mauser shows Canadians use guns in self-defense against assailants more than 32,000 times a year.


34]American Rifleman, August 1993, Pg42-44, "Kids and Guns" by David Kopel.

[35]"Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986): 1557-1560

[36]"Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force" by Professor Gary Kleck.

[37] US federal law, 18 USC 922(g).



Tagged. Filed. Referenced.

Great find LordGreyBoots


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top