A Prayer

**Devil** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:21pm

Originally Posted by patfromlogan

You wrote about killing a mob and when responded to, the responder was attacked for not getting your trolling (or something to that effect). Therefore you win if taken seriously, win if not, the logical response being countered either way.

So what are the self-defense value in a 30 clip magazine? Taking out a lynch mob circa 1935 Alabama? Please tell me something good, beneficial, that automatics, held by civilians, have done.

I will consider it after you learn the difference between automatics and semiautomatics.

**submessenger** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:27pm

Originally Posted by Scut Farkus

I will consider it after you learn the difference between automatics and semiautomatics.

I don't bother trying to correct this mistake, gun control advocates misuse the term on purpose, I think.

**Scrapper** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:34pm

"Further, the chance that large numbers of guns in the schools not in the control of trained, experienced professionals will lead to accidental shootings, gun thefts by students, use of the guns by teachers in confrontations with students, or other problems has to be taken into account. And as Arthur L. Kellermann (M.D., M.P.H.), et al., found in their study, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," published in the Journal of Trauma 45 (1998): 263-267, in their sample set, among people who injured or killed someone with a gun that they kept in their home, 48% of the shootings were attempted or successful suicides, 30% were homicides, attempted homicides, or assaults with a deadly weapon, 18% were accidental shootings, and 4% were self-defense or justifiable homicides or attempted homicides."

This study was based upon a survey of 4500 homes, and subjected to much-refuted statistical manipulation to achieve results Kellerman admitted were political. Furthermore, his extrapolated risks never correlated to actual data, and as such even the CDC will not use his data or methods.

Kellermen's method also received criticism for including guns brought into the home by the criminal in question as a "gun in the home." IE, a murder breaks in with a gun, therefore you have a gun in the home.

"The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police."

"there were significant differences between the study participants and the control. There was a 30% difference between home ownership vs renting between subjects and control, and a 15% difference in living alone or not. Only 48% of the control subjects were interviewed in person. Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls."

As refuted:
Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.

Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals:

"The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)

Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, a number much smaller, obviously, than the number of criminals killed or wounded. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)

Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses.

**Scrapper** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:35pm

I am the Cullion of gun control debates...

**Devil** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:36pm

Also, a "30 clip magazine." lol. I missed that one the first time through. The **** is a 30 clip magazine? This **** just highlights the absurdity of these ignorami attempting to have an intelligent discussion about something they don't understand. It's like tribesmen from the amazon trying to have an intelligent discussion about airline safety.

Reminds me of Carolyn "Barrel Shroud" McCarthy.

**Vieux Normand** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:37pm

Originally Posted by Swollen Elf Goon

I am the Cullion of gun control debates...

^^^????

Cullion is a one-man lemon party.

You sure you want to make that claim?

**Permalost** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:37pm

Originally Posted by Nutcracker, sweet

I don't bother trying to correct this mistake, gun control advocates misuse the term on purpose, I think.

I dunno, gun control advocates often have a level of ignorance about firearms that's hard to fake.

**Permalost** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:39pm

I'm sick of you arrogant gun-loving rednecks with your 30 chip magazines!

**Devil** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:42pm

**ChuckWepner** · Posted On: 12/19/2012 1:59pm

Originally Posted by Swollen Elf Goon

"Further, the chance that large numbers of guns in the schools not in the control of trained, experienced professionals will lead to accidental shootings, gun thefts by students, use of the guns by teachers in confrontations with students, or other problems has to be taken into account. And as Arthur L. Kellermann (M.D., M.P.H.), et al., found in their study, "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," published in the Journal of Trauma 45 (1998): 263-267, in their sample set, among people who injured or killed someone with a gun that they kept in their home, 48% of the shootings were attempted or successful suicides, 30% were homicides, attempted homicides, or assaults with a deadly weapon, 18% were accidental shootings, and 4% were self-defense or justifiable homicides or attempted homicides."

This study was based upon a survey of 4500 homes, and subjected to much-refuted statistical manipulation to achieve results Kellerman admitted were political. Furthermore, his extrapolated risks never correlated to actual data, and as such even the CDC will not use his data or methods.

Kellermen's method also received criticism for including guns brought into the home by the criminal in question as a "gun in the home." IE, a murder breaks in with a gun, therefore you have a gun in the home.

"The authors reported that among those 438 assaultive gunshot woundings, 49 involved a gun 'kept in the home where the shooting occurred,' 295 involved a gun brought to the scene from elsewhere, and another 94 involved a gun whose origins were not noted by the police."

"there were significant differences between the study participants and the control. There was a 30% difference between home ownership vs renting between subjects and control, and a 15% difference in living alone or not. Only 48% of the control subjects were interviewed in person. Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls."

As refuted:
Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.

Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals:

"The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)

Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually, a number much smaller, obviously, than the number of criminals killed or wounded. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)

Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses.

I see a lot of criticism of Kellermann et al's study here, but I don't see any evidence as to what the actual numbers of successful uses of guns for self-defense vs. unsuccessful attempts, accidents, misuse, etc., are (apart from what looks to be a pulled it out of his ass 500-1000 successful gun threats for every successful shooting estimate by one doctor; does he have data on inappropriate gun threats for comparison?).

Do you know of better data from refereed sources on the rate of successful use of guns in self-defense vs. use in homicides / suicides / assaults / accidental shootings? That's what I'd really like to see.