arma virumque cano (et alia)
Typical. Someone photoshops a pic of the David sculpture with an AR-15, and the anti-gun cud-chewers go into epic meltdown mode. They also turn one of Oleg Volk's superb photos supporting gun rights into idiotic, hysterical anti-self-defense propaganda.
Mike, we already beat this horse to death when Laci posted the same picture.http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/12/truth-in-advertising.html
Are you aware that you're using copyrighted material without permission?
Mike don't need no steenking laws.
A girl brandishing a firearm is a real boner-killer!
Speak for yourself.
Sometimes that's the idea.
TS--I see what you did there...nice.
Yeah, you guys hate this one. I can see why.
Yes, it's easy to see why: You're engaging in copyright infringement, and the text is in error.
"Yeah, you guys hate this one. I can see why." Mike, we can rehash the inaccuracies of the Kellerman study again if you wish, I just thought that perhaps you didn't recall the reposting since Laci has originally posted it."Several academic papers have been published severely questioning Kellerman's methodology, selective capture of data, and refusal to provide raw data from his gun-risk studies so as to substantiate his methods and result validity. While Kellerman has backed away from his previous statement that people are “43 times more likely” to be murdered in their own home if they own and keep a gun in their home, he still proposes that the risk is 2.7 times higher. The critiques included Henry E. Schaffer, J. Neil Schuman, and criminologists Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and others."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
I remember those discussions well and your Wikipedia excerpt about gun-rights fanatics criticizing Kellerman doesn't say much. I think in those earlier discussions I made the point that it's just a matter of degree, of exactly HOW bad it is to have a gun in the home. It's not a question of WHETHER it's bad or not, just HOW bad it really is.
"It's not a question of WHETHER it's bad or not, just HOW bad it really is." As I've said before, when you intentionally use inaccurate data, you dare I say it, shoot yourself in the foot. These inaccuracies are so prevalent, that it sort of becomes like a Where's Waldo photo, it distracts from your message and people automatically start looking for the mistakes. And needless to say, it also speaks to gun control advocates' credibility.
Since there are more than 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, either the dangers are very low and how many times one is of the other doesn't really matter, or Kellermann has exaggerated or misstated the danger.
Remember, Kellerman also said you are 4.3 times more likely to get murdered if you rent your dwelling instead of own. So if you really want to save lives, we should be focusing on getting back to the days of interest only ARMs before we worry about gun control.
Yeah, for you the idea is to focus on anything but the availability of guns.
Leave it to you to only focus on guns, when the same study showed several factors that are greater contributions to murder. But mainly I point out the silly result about renting as a discredit of the study.
Kellerman's wording makes it seem like he is talking about actually shooting the wrong person- an accidental killing. But that's not what the figure is. It is mostly murders. The line of "...or acquaintance" is so broad to include your enemies, rival gang members, rival drug dealers, etc., people whom the shooter was trying to kill.Apart from that, we can clearly see that his study does not mesh with reality. If you are 2.7 times more likely to be murdered if you own a gun, then we'd see correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. Mike, you'll deny correlation calculations till the sun engulfs the earth, but there is an even more obvious flaw that you can't deny. Kellerman says your risk of killing someone else is twice that of killing yourself via suicide. But we know the opposite is true. There are twice as many suicides with a gun as homicides with a gun.
"Kellerman says your risk of killing someone else is twice that of killing yourself via suicide."Is that true? I don't remember that one.
You don't remember? Here is the link where you cited those Kellermann figures:http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/03/keep-safe-people.html?m=1Oh wait... It's this one ;)In the poster, he says you are 22 times more likely to commit suicide than kill an intruder , and 43 times more likely to kill someone else who is not classified as "an intruder".
I get what you're saying. You know how slow I am with high mathematics.But isn't this discussion about guns in the home? And don't the general stats about murders and suicides include many that are not done in the home? That would make your conclusion the one with a flaw.