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

cough BULLSHIT cough

wow, someone I know told me this a while back.  I just fucking laughed at them.  I can't remember who it was though.

I'll take my chances by having guns.

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.

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.

The same can be said for knives. Tell him to empty his kitchen.....

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.

thats why i carry

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.

Quoted: 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

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

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.

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/

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

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.

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

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

Quoted: I'll take my chances by having guns.

+1

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


SGatr15

Quoted: 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

I no longer bother arguing with imbeciles.
Life is too short for that.

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?"

I guess I should keep mine outside.

Quoted: Just take out your pistol and shoot the fucker in his knees.  Than look at him and say:  "Damn, your right!" SGatr15

Quoted: 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

Hey wasn't there some one on here that got slapped down, And there gun taken from them not to long ago?

HMMMMMMMMM

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

Now is that ME YOU or YOU YOU ?

MT

Quoted: 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.

Why don't criminals end up having THEIR guns used against them?  

If that were true I should have been killed daily for about thirty five years.

rgg

Good site for the FACTS: www.guncite.com

Enjoy!

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.

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.

Cold hard fact... your friend is a maroon.

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.

Car owners are more likely to drive to work, than non-car owner, who are more likely to take a bus to work.

Someone who drives a car is more likely to die in an automobile accident.

Quoted: 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.

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).

Quoted: cough BULLSHIT cough

+1

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

+1

Quoted: 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.

Quoted: 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.

You are more likely to be killed in a car if you are riding in one....

Quoted: 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.

Quoted: You are more likely to be killed in a car if you are riding in one....

Yep.

Quoted: 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.

[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]

Quoted: 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