I’m 95% confident that the true value of this story is in a range that includes the value of complete and utter fabrication. Pure bullshit.
It’s really okay to admit to being simply congenitally frightened of the world. Nobody could think any less of you than they already do.
That fairly minor “mistake” had a fairly major implication. You should thank me for helping fight your ignorance.
I look at table 3 and I see “case subject or control subject had trouble at work because of drinking” 20 (TWENTY!!!) times more likely to be involved in a homicide, while a handgun in the home only 1.9 times more likely. And of course a shotgun in the home made you 0.7 and a rifle 0.8 times as likely. The less than one values of course mean they were LESS likely to have a homicide, but of course Kellerman did not find the latter differences significant.
I know Hentor. To you defensive gun use really doesn’t happen, and when you calculate the mental health of your household you must conclude that owning a gun puts you at risk for harm, regardless of how much fun you think they are to shoot.
No, it actually did not have any such implication. You weren’t even able to explain the problem or the implications to the people who asked you about it.
It’s about as meaningful as the fact that after all this discussion, you still don’t know how to spell “Kellermann.”
so, eyeballing it, then? Do you really think this is the way to test for significant differences between parameters in the model?
Look, why are you bleeding your stupidity about the Kellermann paper into yet another thread? Is it because it actually works well to demonstrate that you are above all the Stupid Gun news of the day?
Hey I just knew enough to know you were full of shit. You thought you could bullshit your way out of that mess you were in, and you were called on it. Man up.
Yeah, I just eyeball it. I don’t always trust peoples statistics.
I’m sorry the facts are not in accordance with your message.
Looks like the men in blue believe that an armed citizenry is effective in stopping crime. More than 15,000 law enforcement people responded.
Bet you won’t see this in the national news.
More than 91 percent of respondents support the concealed carry of firearms by civilians who have not been convicted of a felony and/or not been deemed psychologically/medically incapable.
A full 86 percent feel that casualties would have been reduced or avoided in recent tragedies like Newtown and Aurora if a legally-armed citizen was present (casualties reduced: 80 percent; avoided altogether: 60 percent).
It’s important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.
The press release: http://www.policeone.com/corporate-profile/press-releases/6188461-PoliceOne-com-Releases-Survey-of-15-000-Law-Enforcement-Professionals-about-U-S-Gun-Control-Policies/
A printable summary of the results (17 pages!). http://ddq74coujkv1i.cloudfront.net/p1_gunsurveysummary_2013.pdf
“Sheep don’t tell wolves what’s for dinner.”
My mistake. I apologize. In other posts you’ve mentioned things about hearing the front door breaking down, it being dark and getting a flashlight for your gun for the next time, and your girlfriend calling 911. I assumed that meant there was some time between the intruder breaking in and your fight. I didn’t realize that you were awoken by him hitting you by the 2x4. For what you describe, you were safer with a gun. It was your last option.
The type of incidents I’m talking about are those where the owner realizes there is some danger, gets their gun, and then gets into a more dangerous situation. There are endless examples of this behavior.
Take the example of Philip Sailors. A car mistakenly pulls into his driveway, he goes outside, erroneously evaluates the situation as hostile, retrieves his gun from his house and approaches the vehicle. If the car occupants really were violent, they could have shot him when he came back out. The fact that he was brandishing a gun means the occupants should assume that he means to shoot them. They may shoot back defensively. Sailors would have been safer remaining in the house or fleeing out the back.
Or the example of Melinda Slater. When a stranger is knocking at her door, Melinda Herman calls her husband who recommends she get the gun and hide in a closet their two kids. The intruder finds them and Melinda shoots him 6 times and he was not incapacitated. She’s out of bullets and he could have attacked her. Rather than hide in the house with a gun, she should have fled with her children.
Or the Zimmerman/Martin incident. Zimmerman is randomly suspicious of Martin walking through the neighborhood. Zimmerman seeks him out through dark alleys, eventually finding him. They get into a fight and Zimmerman is being beaten so badly that he fears for his life. He grabs his gun and shoots Martin. If he didn’t have his gun, he might have been killed in that fight. But why was he even in that situation at all? If he didn’t have a gun, likely he would have stayed in his car and waited for the police.
These are the incidents I’m talking about. The gun owner thinks there might be danger, gets his gun, and then foolishly puts himself into a more dangerous situation. The gun gives him a false sense of security. Instead, he should look at the gun as one of the last options. Getting as far away from the danger will be much safer than staying in the dangerous situation, gun or not.
Thanks. I was awakened by noise at the door. The guy was in my room before I was able to get out of the bed. Fortunately I did have time to grab my pistol, which was beside my bed and chamber a round before he entered my room. I couldn’t tell see he had a weapon until he hit me with it however.
I’m sure that does happen but I doubt the examples are endless. Plus if criminals knew their homeowners would always flee rather than fight back, there would probably be a lot more home invasions.
I think staying in the house would have been better than fleeing out the back, but I agree running out the front door with a gun was the worst of options. He certainly should not have shot at the guy as he was not in imminent danger. In my CCW course they taught that activity like that, and a lot of other common examples, like shooting a shotgun off your back porch “Biden style” are illegal.
I think what she did was quite reasonable. You do illustrate why higher capacity magazines can be important. The Glock I shot my home invader with held 15, but I fired only once, better to have more than enough than less than enough I figure.
All that is true and certainly all would have been better off if Zimmerman had listened to the police to stay in his car.
I don’t think it’s correct to say the gun owner is getting a false sense of security. The aid in security is real, but the gun owner still has to execute good judgement. Bad things with guns do happen, but the benefits are clearly real. With more and better training and education, and better equipment, it is hoped that the good can be maximized and the bad minimized.
I’m not 12 years old, therefore I do not engage in debates that use youtube videos as source material.
You may also be aware that personal anecdotes are not a substitute for factual information that informs policy decisions.
But then you have trouble grasping basis statistics, so…
She quoted a number of stats as I recall. Any of them wrong?
I don’t view youtube videos to get my facts. Someone “quoting a number of stats” is meaningless.
I could show you youtube videos with someone quoting facts and statistics about Bigfoot or Alien encounters, but it does not mean that they are true.
OK, that’s your way of saying you couldn’t fault them. 
Yes. She said that a person in Chicago was twice as likely to be killed as a soldier in Afghanistan. In fact, her discussion on this served as the bulk of any stats related discussion in her presentation.
Gun types invariably struggle with the denominator. It’s why they always want to compare guns with pools, baseball bats, bicycles, alcohol. It’s the denominator, stupid.
In this case, I’m not going to take the time to calculate actual person-years of exposure to risk. We’ll just have to make do with a rough estimate based on the population at a point in time. I looked up the population of Chicago (2,707,120), and the peak number of troops in Afghanistan (187,900). Using the peak number of troops in Afghanistan makes the comparison more favorable in the young woman’s direction; the actual number over the years she indicated would be lower.
We will take her figures on deaths to illustrate the point. She gave a figure of 4,265 killed in Chicago (she also gave the number of people shot, which would be more relevant to the gun issue, but we’ll use her figure for “killed” since we’re evaluating her claim of being twice as likely to be killed). This leaves us with 2,702,855 not killed.
She said 2,166 were killed in Afghanistan (or the “Afghani war” as she kept calling it), leaving 185,734 not killed.
The odds ratio (4,265/2,702,855)/(2,166/185,734) is 0.13 (95% CI = .1285 - .1425 ;), p value < .0001). This suggests that you were nearly 90% less likely to be killed in Chicago as was a soldier in Afghanistan.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say she quoted “a number” of stats. Essentially there was one stat, unless I missed something. But honestly, it’s a 3 minute video, you can’t summarize the main points and make a coherent argument yourself?
Her points:
Wah, she’s wealthy enough to own a bunch of guns and burn through ammo, she could have used that money for college. My heart weeps not.
I don’t know what specific legislation she was arguing against, but the point is easily conceded - handguns are used in more crimes and suicides than long guns by a large factor. If she, like Damuri Ajashi, were arguing in favor of universal licensing and registration as opposed to an AWB, then that’d be fine, except she then goes on to say,
To which I say, the same poor people who overwhelmingly vote Democrat and want gun control, because they’re the ones who have to watch people get gunned down all the time. Also, if she’s ruling out weapons bans AND registration/licensing, then she’s basically arguing for the status quo.
Yes, and the problem of guns being purchased by straw buyers in Indiana and outside of Chicago and then being sold to gangs is well understood. This is not an argument against Chicago’s gun laws, it’s an argument that localized gun laws aren’t sufficient.
While completely failing to mention the thing that all conservatives fail to mention when bringing this up – 22 stabbed, 0 dead.
I think she should go spend 6 months living in southeast DC and see how she feels about guns then. She strikes me as a rather entitled little snot.
6-Year-Old Accidentally Shot by 4-Year-Old
Should the gun owner be held accountable?
Of course access to guns can easily help you solve complicated shit like this:
Tis tragedy would never have happened if the six year old was armed. There would be less crimes like this if the four year old knew there was a good chance he would be shot by a concealed carry holder before he decided to commit his thuggery. When are Americans going to wake up and realize that the more people are armed and can protect themselves, the fewer times will we have to confront this type of victimization?
A travesty of justice. This fine American was exercising his God given and Constitutionally protectect rights to defend himself from Ahmad and Ahkeem who were attacking him over dog poop. It’s clear to me Virginia needs a stand your ground law. This would never happened in Florida.
What kind of names are those anyway? French?
The only way to stop a bad 4-year-old with a gun is a good 4-year-old with a gun.
I’m thinking of starting some petitions, will anyone sign them if I do?[ol]
[li]i want to petition the TSA to allow legal concealed carry permit holders to take their weapons on planes. First off, their policies impinge on my Second Amendment Rights. Secondly, 9/11 never would have happened if people were allowed to carry guns on planes.[/li][li]I want to force my state’s department of education to issue bullet proof vests to all students. Their safety is paramount and if my 8 year old daughter is not allowed to bring her glock 19 to school, the least the school board can do is protect her with a vest.[/li][li]Still thinking of you… :([/li][/ol]
Will anyone sign on with me?