mnealtx 0 #251 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy is taking action to reduce homicides a "danger"? Because people come up with knee jerk reactions that wont change a thing in the real world. But it makes them feel like they did good for the world and they sleep better. Even though there action was nothing but lip service. If you don't think you can secure your own weapon what use would you be in a militia (Ref. 2nd Amendment). Why should the rest of us trust you with it?Quote That knee-jerk again? "A well trained chef, being necessary to the creation of a tasty dessert, the right of the people to eat Baked Alaska shall not be infringed." Who gets the dessert, Professor? The chef or the people at the table? QuoteThe biggest knee jerk is the gun owners' immediate dismissal of any proposal that might inconvenience them. WHAT DO YOU THINK should be done to keep guns out of the hands of nutters and felons. A real proposal, please. Well, you seem to have no problems with the gov't sticking their noses into people houses on THIS point - seems to be a bit in opposition to someone interested in our rights...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #252 December 11, 2007 Quote>How about no more low ball prison terms for the convicted. I'd go along with that - as long as it was paired with laws that require gun owners to be responsible for the security of their weapons. Can we put parents in jail alongside their kids, too? After all, they're responsible for them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #253 December 11, 2007 What do YOU think can be done to stop nutters from getting hold of guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #254 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteso now you're a fan of anecdotal information as evidence? No response on the constitutional question, of course. --- The answer to your bigger question is simple. If the only solutions to a problem are to violate people's rights, we don't enact any of them. The status quo is preferable to bad solutions. Doing something for the act of doing something is not good policy. Your proposal is WHAT, then? Sacrifice a few thousand people every year so that you can continue to play with your guns wtih no inconvenience? I know you have stated that owner should be responcible but, I feel you have danced around what you think would be the best finial solution. While I agee in principal the practicallity of the matter is much different. As I stated before, the shootings discussed lhere ately are symptoms. (and I am not talking about symptoms of gun ownership and responcible handling) I think the anwer lies out side the gun issue all together. Thoughts? How come other western democratic societies have, almost without exception, a lower gun homicide rate than the US and stricter gun laws than the US. Pure coincidence? I think not. And, of course, the fact that there's been NO gun murders in NYC or Chicago since they started their registration schemes, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #255 December 11, 2007 www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #256 December 11, 2007 More guns more deaths: www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #257 December 11, 2007 QuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... QuoteMore than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report) And (as a rough estimate) 35 million babies have been aborted since 1973, but you don't seem to be on a crusade against that. QuoteIn recent years typically some 30,000+ Americans are killed by guns each year. You forgot this part, didn't you? "NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police" QuoteNothing to worry about, not a problem. No, it *IS* a problem. Your solutions, however, go against all you've said concerning rights.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #258 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote Current firearm injury research, involving three large American cities, concludes that a handgun in your home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder. Healthlink, Medical College of Wisconsin The problem with that statistic??? Guess what they did: They included all the instances when it was the intruder himself who was the one who brought the gun into your home!! So, suppose you don't own a gun. An armed criminal breaks into your house & kills a family member. Guess what? That gets counted as one of those 22 times!! After all, when the Intruder entered, you DID have a gun in the home! Neat how that works, isn't it? Try this for size: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/hsop-gih040607.php... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #259 December 11, 2007 Quote www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns? Short of more lists, like those Patriot Act / no-fly lists you so detest when they're used for purposes YOU don't care for? Not a whole lot that I can see.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #260 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns? Short of more lists, like those Patriot Act / no-fly lists you so detest when they're used for purposes YOU don't care for? Not a whole lot that I can see. What you mean is nothing that will inconvenience YOU. Funny that gun related fatality rates track gun ownership rates both between states in the USA, and between the USA and other nations. And that suggests nothing to you?There are none so blind as those that will not see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #261 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #262 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Current firearm injury research, involving three large American cities, concludes that a handgun in your home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder. Healthlink, Medical College of Wisconsin ah, a newer attempt at the Kellerman 43:1 ratio. I see now it is sufficient to injury an intruder, but still no credit for when they flee, even though it has the happy ending of no one being hurt. BTW, do you have a real citation for this, or just the unattributed claim on Healthlink at http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002281.html ? I can't find it on google, other than as an unsupported claim. Also see the classic 43:1, and now 18:1. It's great to have so many different versions of the lie to tell! Here's a meta analysis taken from a peer reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Association): www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html Basically confirms that gun ownership IS associated with high risk of death.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #263 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott. Yes, he's been accused of that - Kellerman's methods have ALSO been shown to be at fault - perhaps YOU should do some research on sites OTHER than VPC.org? Here's a little light reading for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #264 December 11, 2007 QuoteMore guns more deaths: www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html So why are you posting multiple citations for the same study? (3 for this one, others show repeats as well.) Going for Goebbel's approach? Not even a citation to be accurate, just a summary lacking enough information to make any evaluation. ($30 for the PDF - sorry, I don't support the opposition with money) BTW, are you going to find a real citation for the 22:1 propaganda, or is it hidden away with the yellow cake documents? The state by state analysis is particularly suspect. You might be able to summarize a corn state like Nebraska that way, but it won't work for Illinois, dwarfed by Chicago, California, Texas, Georgia...any location with great variation in the rural/metro mix. The summary is written to sound very compelling, but the lack of access to the info sounds no better than Lott hiding his evidence in a sea of technical detail. (You know that technique as well) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuteless 1 #265 December 11, 2007 Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans? The gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings. The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #266 December 11, 2007 QuoteA law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. There's dozens, if not hundreds, of such laws on the books already - why do you think a few more will make a difference? This is more of a cultural issue than the simple fact of owning a gun. Yup - it's still not shooting anyone.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuteless 1 #267 December 11, 2007 Name on place that gives 15 years for a gun crime. Many have a 2 year penalty and nothing more.. Its time to take STRONG measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #268 December 11, 2007 Nevermind the facts, just accept whatever you are told. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #269 December 11, 2007 I have a good example of what a deterrent is. Who would any of you rather attempt a home invasion on if you were a criminal? 1. My house? 2. Kallends House? Now given the opinion of some of the less learned amongst us, I should be a more desireable target of home invasion because of the fact that I own several high value, and higly effective firearms. Now why is it that people would choose to invade a home where they know guns are either locked up or unloaded and not ready for immediate useage? Case in point is that Kallend was once a cop, does that deter a criminal from invading his home and assaulting his SO? I am just an old, broken down, has been, or never was, so why would a criminal think twice about attacking my home, or loved ones? Please post a clear and concise response, not a veiled attack, or a cut n paste of someone elses words, found somewhere on the web. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #270 December 11, 2007 Quote Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. this line shows you have no idea what you are talking about Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans?once again, no ideaThe gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings.do you need help? The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. OK, you redeamed yourself a little here Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #271 December 11, 2007 QuoteName on place that gives 15 years for a gun crime. Many have a 2 year penalty and nothing more.. Its time to take STRONG measures. And there's plenty of 10 years (or more) penalties out there. The '68 GCA had penalties of 5/10/20/life for various gun crimes, for example. If federal prison time or the possibility of the death penalty isn't deterring criminals, it's a pipe dream to think that 15 years mandatory sentencing is going to make an appreciable difference.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,026 #272 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott. Yes, he's been accused of that - Kellerman's methods have ALSO been shown to be at fault - perhaps YOU should do some research on sites OTHER than VPC.org? Here's a little light reading for you. How about some legitimate peer reviewed research instead of a letter to the editor? Kellerman's initial data have certainly been adjusted in the light of detailed criticisms, but even after correction the general conclusion that having a gun in the home makes you more at risk of being killed has not been refuted, and is strongly supported by recent research on the relation between fatality rates and gun ownership rates. Lott. on the other hand, had to masquerade as a woman to get a favorable review of his work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pop 0 #273 December 11, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep. Guns should be *reasonably* secured, imho. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree! If you have a 10yo running around you need to keep it locked up. But what others are saying is that no matter what happens I am at fault if something bad happens. Sop yopu are saying that guns should be locked with kids around? Why? How do you then protect yourself from that intruder? Clearly you are saying that guns are not always a good idea to have around. Which is pretty much what Kallend is saying.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pop 0 #274 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. this line shows you have no idea what you are talking about Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans?once again, no ideaThe gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings.do you need help? The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. OK, you redeamed yourself a little here Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. Sometimes its hard to take a step back and look at the big picture if you are and always have been part of the picture. If all you know is the American way of life, it becomes harder to comprehend why guns are not a good idea. Americans are taught to love their guns from day one. It's even in our constitution. Our love for guns has created a culture that believes guns solve problems. When you get a chance to live in other places for an extended period of time where people arent so "gung ho" about guns, you maybe will be able to see this situation in a different light. Guns do not solve problems. They simply add to them.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #275 December 11, 2007 >>as long as it was paired with laws that require gun owners to be >>responsible for the security of their weapons. >Can we put parents in jail alongside their kids, too? Are you arguing that parents should not be responsible for their kids? Who is, the state? Quite a flip-flop for you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 11 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #252 December 11, 2007 Quote>How about no more low ball prison terms for the convicted. I'd go along with that - as long as it was paired with laws that require gun owners to be responsible for the security of their weapons. Can we put parents in jail alongside their kids, too? After all, they're responsible for them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #253 December 11, 2007 What do YOU think can be done to stop nutters from getting hold of guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #254 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteso now you're a fan of anecdotal information as evidence? No response on the constitutional question, of course. --- The answer to your bigger question is simple. If the only solutions to a problem are to violate people's rights, we don't enact any of them. The status quo is preferable to bad solutions. Doing something for the act of doing something is not good policy. Your proposal is WHAT, then? Sacrifice a few thousand people every year so that you can continue to play with your guns wtih no inconvenience? I know you have stated that owner should be responcible but, I feel you have danced around what you think would be the best finial solution. While I agee in principal the practicallity of the matter is much different. As I stated before, the shootings discussed lhere ately are symptoms. (and I am not talking about symptoms of gun ownership and responcible handling) I think the anwer lies out side the gun issue all together. Thoughts? How come other western democratic societies have, almost without exception, a lower gun homicide rate than the US and stricter gun laws than the US. Pure coincidence? I think not. And, of course, the fact that there's been NO gun murders in NYC or Chicago since they started their registration schemes, right? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #255 December 11, 2007 www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #256 December 11, 2007 More guns more deaths: www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #257 December 11, 2007 QuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... QuoteMore than one million Americans have died in firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings since 1962. (Fatal Firearm Injuries in the United States 1962-1994. Violence Surveillance Summary Series, No. 3, 1997; Deaths: Final Data for 1995- 1997, National Vital Statistics Report) And (as a rough estimate) 35 million babies have been aborted since 1973, but you don't seem to be on a crusade against that. QuoteIn recent years typically some 30,000+ Americans are killed by guns each year. You forgot this part, didn't you? "NOTE: Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare, Self Defense Shootings and Criminals Killed by Police" QuoteNothing to worry about, not a problem. No, it *IS* a problem. Your solutions, however, go against all you've said concerning rights.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #258 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote Current firearm injury research, involving three large American cities, concludes that a handgun in your home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder. Healthlink, Medical College of Wisconsin The problem with that statistic??? Guess what they did: They included all the instances when it was the intruder himself who was the one who brought the gun into your home!! So, suppose you don't own a gun. An armed criminal breaks into your house & kills a family member. Guess what? That gets counted as one of those 22 times!! After all, when the Intruder entered, you DID have a gun in the home! Neat how that works, isn't it? Try this for size: www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/hsop-gih040607.php... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #259 December 11, 2007 Quote www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns? Short of more lists, like those Patriot Act / no-fly lists you so detest when they're used for purposes YOU don't care for? Not a whole lot that I can see.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #260 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html What do YOU think can be done to prevent nutters from getting hold of guns? Short of more lists, like those Patriot Act / no-fly lists you so detest when they're used for purposes YOU don't care for? Not a whole lot that I can see. What you mean is nothing that will inconvenience YOU. Funny that gun related fatality rates track gun ownership rates both between states in the USA, and between the USA and other nations. And that suggests nothing to you?There are none so blind as those that will not see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #261 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #262 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote Current firearm injury research, involving three large American cities, concludes that a handgun in your home is 22 times more likely to be used to injure or kill a family member or acquaintance than an intruder. Healthlink, Medical College of Wisconsin ah, a newer attempt at the Kellerman 43:1 ratio. I see now it is sufficient to injury an intruder, but still no credit for when they flee, even though it has the happy ending of no one being hurt. BTW, do you have a real citation for this, or just the unattributed claim on Healthlink at http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002281.html ? I can't find it on google, other than as an unsupported claim. Also see the classic 43:1, and now 18:1. It's great to have so many different versions of the lie to tell! Here's a meta analysis taken from a peer reviewed journal (Journal of the American Medical Association): www.guncite.com/cummingsjama.html Basically confirms that gun ownership IS associated with high risk of death.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #263 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott. Yes, he's been accused of that - Kellerman's methods have ALSO been shown to be at fault - perhaps YOU should do some research on sites OTHER than VPC.org? Here's a little light reading for you.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #264 December 11, 2007 QuoteMore guns more deaths: www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html So why are you posting multiple citations for the same study? (3 for this one, others show repeats as well.) Going for Goebbel's approach? Not even a citation to be accurate, just a summary lacking enough information to make any evaluation. ($30 for the PDF - sorry, I don't support the opposition with money) BTW, are you going to find a real citation for the 22:1 propaganda, or is it hidden away with the yellow cake documents? The state by state analysis is particularly suspect. You might be able to summarize a corn state like Nebraska that way, but it won't work for Illinois, dwarfed by Chicago, California, Texas, Georgia...any location with great variation in the rural/metro mix. The summary is written to sound very compelling, but the lack of access to the info sounds no better than Lott hiding his evidence in a sea of technical detail. (You know that technique as well) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #265 December 11, 2007 Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans? The gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings. The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #266 December 11, 2007 QuoteA law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. There's dozens, if not hundreds, of such laws on the books already - why do you think a few more will make a difference? This is more of a cultural issue than the simple fact of owning a gun. Yup - it's still not shooting anyone.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #267 December 11, 2007 Name on place that gives 15 years for a gun crime. Many have a 2 year penalty and nothing more.. Its time to take STRONG measures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #268 December 11, 2007 Nevermind the facts, just accept whatever you are told. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #269 December 11, 2007 I have a good example of what a deterrent is. Who would any of you rather attempt a home invasion on if you were a criminal? 1. My house? 2. Kallends House? Now given the opinion of some of the less learned amongst us, I should be a more desireable target of home invasion because of the fact that I own several high value, and higly effective firearms. Now why is it that people would choose to invade a home where they know guns are either locked up or unloaded and not ready for immediate useage? Case in point is that Kallend was once a cop, does that deter a criminal from invading his home and assaulting his SO? I am just an old, broken down, has been, or never was, so why would a criminal think twice about attacking my home, or loved ones? Please post a clear and concise response, not a veiled attack, or a cut n paste of someone elses words, found somewhere on the web. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #270 December 11, 2007 Quote Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. this line shows you have no idea what you are talking about Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans?once again, no ideaThe gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings.do you need help? The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. OK, you redeamed yourself a little here Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #271 December 11, 2007 QuoteName on place that gives 15 years for a gun crime. Many have a 2 year penalty and nothing more.. Its time to take STRONG measures. And there's plenty of 10 years (or more) penalties out there. The '68 GCA had penalties of 5/10/20/life for various gun crimes, for example. If federal prison time or the possibility of the death penalty isn't deterring criminals, it's a pipe dream to think that 15 years mandatory sentencing is going to make an appreciable difference.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #272 December 11, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA gun in your home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner (Kellerman,New England Journal of Medicine v329, n.15 1993) Kellerman has been debunked so many times, I think you'd be ashamed to even mention him... . Ummm - no. Try reading PEER REVIEWED literature instead of NRA propaganda. The guy who's been shown to fabricate his data is John Lott. Yes, he's been accused of that - Kellerman's methods have ALSO been shown to be at fault - perhaps YOU should do some research on sites OTHER than VPC.org? Here's a little light reading for you. How about some legitimate peer reviewed research instead of a letter to the editor? Kellerman's initial data have certainly been adjusted in the light of detailed criticisms, but even after correction the general conclusion that having a gun in the home makes you more at risk of being killed has not been refuted, and is strongly supported by recent research on the relation between fatality rates and gun ownership rates. Lott. on the other hand, had to masquerade as a woman to get a favorable review of his work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #273 December 11, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yep. Guns should be *reasonably* secured, imho. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree! If you have a 10yo running around you need to keep it locked up. But what others are saying is that no matter what happens I am at fault if something bad happens. Sop yopu are saying that guns should be locked with kids around? Why? How do you then protect yourself from that intruder? Clearly you are saying that guns are not always a good idea to have around. Which is pretty much what Kallend is saying.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pop 0 #274 December 11, 2007 Quote Quote Ive been away for a few days...so this is my catching up post. The bottom line in the USA is, most people support the gun being easily available, because they think a gun can solve all their problems. this line shows you have no idea what you are talking about Colt Gun Manufacturing Co used to call their revolver the " great equalizer" Its is like the guy about two months ago in Texas, called 911, and said someone wwas breaking into his neighbour's home and the owner was away. He then told the 911 operator, that he was going to take his gun and go to kill the two intruders at his neighbour's home. The 911 operator told him " don't do it" and the guy went next door and killed both burglars. Does anyone really believe that there may have been something in that home being burglarized that was worth the lives of two humans?once again, no ideaThe gun is America's problem solver....and its is the shoot first ...ask questions later that causes many of these killings.do you need help? The same attitude ( which stinks) has been shown by the R.C.M.P. with the use of their tasers. They don't even bother to assess the situation, they just get their "toy" out and taser someone, and then give the person a second shock for the fun of it. some fun!! I am totally disgusted with the RCMP, and the four officers who killed the Polish immigrant at Vancouver, should be fired. A law should be passed giving ANYONE committing a crime with a gun, an automatic penalty of 15 years in prison. OK, you redeamed yourself a little here Maybe strong measures will help save some lives. Sometimes its hard to take a step back and look at the big picture if you are and always have been part of the picture. If all you know is the American way of life, it becomes harder to comprehend why guns are not a good idea. Americans are taught to love their guns from day one. It's even in our constitution. Our love for guns has created a culture that believes guns solve problems. When you get a chance to live in other places for an extended period of time where people arent so "gung ho" about guns, you maybe will be able to see this situation in a different light. Guns do not solve problems. They simply add to them.7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #275 December 11, 2007 >>as long as it was paired with laws that require gun owners to be >>responsible for the security of their weapons. >Can we put parents in jail alongside their kids, too? Are you arguing that parents should not be responsible for their kids? Who is, the state? Quite a flip-flop for you! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
