Think you are safer with a gun in your home?

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: techs
Let's face it. You are far more likely to be killed by a gun if you have a gun in your home.
So regardless of whether you have the "right" to have one, you should consider moving your loved ones and yourself to a safer community. That is far, far more likely to keep you alive than a gun in your home.

Except that Kellermann has absolutely no controls in his "study" and a shocking number of lurking variables that render any conclusions scientifically laughable.

Kellermann fails to account for defensive uses that do not result in a shooting (current estimates are that over 95% of defensive firearms uses never involve shots being fired and that this occurs over 2,500,000 times each year).

Kellermann fails to account for instances where shots were fired at an intruder but where no-one was hit.

Kellermann fails to note how many of the non-justifiable shootings were due to legal technicalities (for example, instances where a homeowner chased after a burglar and shot the burglar outside of the home).

Kellermann fails to differentiate between legally-owned firearms and illegally-owned firearms.

Kellermann fails to account for instances where both family members are involved in illegal activities and the shootings are the result of said illegal activities.

Kellermann fails to account for the instances where a firearm is used to defend against spousal abuse or child abuse (these instances would show as the death of a "family member" despite being legitimate defensive uses of the weapon).

In short, Kellermann's work is sloppy. It's not worthy of more than a C- in a college Freshman-level Intro to Statistics course.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Wrong. You can buy a car legally and legally never get a license or register the car. A license and registration are only required if you desire to operate the vehicle on public property (e.g. public streets and highways).

You can buy a bunch of land, build a racetrack on your private land, and then buy as many cars as you want without having a license and without registering them provided you drive them only on your own private property.

I can agree with training if you wish to carry a firearm outside of your own private property, but there should be no licensing or registration required to possess a firearm on your own private property.

ZV

 

[Fern]

^ Damn ZV, you beat me to it.

Fern

 

[JSt0rm]

ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

 

[JSt0rm]

ohh and i also want a grenade launcher with a chain saw attached. Because in the coming apocalypse that plus a football shoulder pad, leather pants, a motorcycle and a feather boa make me a bad ass dude.

Nightrider!!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

Sounds good to me, what's the problem?

Oh... that's right, you're trying to take some people's rights and freedoms while complaining that they're trying to do the same to you.

 

[Genx87]

Never understood the mentality of these people who think you need proof of safety before allowing one to excercise a right granted by our constitution.

That would be like making people prove freedom of speech saves lives. If it doesnt, then why do you need it? Lets yank that as well!

Stupid argument from a stupid OP.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sounds good to me, what's the problem?

Oh... that's right, you're trying to take some people's rights and freedoms while complaining that they're trying to do the same to you.

No problem here. I'm serious. Lets keep all the rights on the table.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Fern
You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

ok fine. Now who's in charge of figuring out whats unreasonable?

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Only the Militia should have the right to bear arms, that's my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

You are right!

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason)

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

Last time I checked it was 'whomever the President decides should be spied upon".

Was this a trick question or something?

 

[BoberFett]

I'm just happy to see the gun-grabbers crying.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Bolded part dictates how reasonableness is to be determined. Granted it's a little fuzzy, but it's not possible to fully quantify these things. There will always be grey areas and, unfortunately, reasonableness is one of those areas.

ZV

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



You are at a much higher risk of drowning in a bathtub if you actually own a bathtub.

The statistics you claim are worthless. I bet people that own motor vehicles are statistically much more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

That doesn't make it a false comparison in the context you used.

You said you are more likely to have a gun accident if you own a gun. I am trying to point out that its a worthless statistic. Of course your more likely to have a gun accident if you actually have a gun. Just like your more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident if you actually own a motor vehicle.

Now if you want to compare the number of homes with guns to the number of gun accidents, that would not be a worthless statistic.

Where did I say "accident"?

So? Replace accident with gun death. His argument is still legitimate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Bolded part dictates how reasonableness is to be determined. Granted it's a little fuzzy, but it's not possible to fully quantify these things. There will always be grey areas and, unfortunately, reasonableness is one of those areas.

ZV

Of course I'm pretty sure that Fern was referencing the ongoing discussions on here about the warrantless searches that have been going on, and that's what Vic was referencing... the warrant. We seem to have done away with those lately.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Darwin333



You are at a much higher risk of drowning in a bathtub if you actually own a bathtub.

The statistics you claim are worthless. I bet people that own motor vehicles are statistically much more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident.

False comparison. I also doubt the accuracy of the statement.

How is it false?

How is it True?

So.... Are you saying that people that DON'T have bathtubs are more likely to drown in a bathtub?

The possibilty exists, but is that more dangerous than getting killed by a Gun one keeps in the house? The False comparison though is that a Bathtub is not designed to Kill. It has an entirely different Purpose.

That doesn't make it a false comparison in the context you used.

You said you are more likely to have a gun accident if you own a gun. I am trying to point out that its a worthless statistic. Of course your more likely to have a gun accident if you actually have a gun. Just like your more likely to get into a motor vehicle accident if you actually own a motor vehicle.

Now if you want to compare the number of homes with guns to the number of gun accidents, that would not be a worthless statistic.

Where did I say "accident"?

So? Replace accident with gun death. His argument is still legitimate.

No, it is a false comparison.

 

[EndGame]

LOL! I absolutely LOVE seeing the anti-gun/anti-second ammendment people whining and crying! The majority of them have no idea and no realistic view of gun owners. They cite statistics but fail to notice the statistics which show the majority of gun owners whom never have a accident/theft/murder occur with any guns they own.

Another simplistic thing many fail to realize/admitt, what exactly was the "militia" when the constitution was written? Was there a "National Guard"? Nope........Was the an organized "State Militia"? Nope.........The "Militia" WAS the citizens of this country. The people whom rose up to beat the English WERE everyday men/boys of this country and THAT is what was written and intended by "Militia".

Yes, I do love seeing the "anti - second ammendment people squirm and eagerly await the day they attempt to secure my guns from me..........

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
ok you guys can all have your guns but in return I want the right to not be domestically spied on no matter who I call in the world, I want the telcos to be exposed to lawsuits and I want to current administration looked into for war crimes. Why should some rights be stripped in the name of the public good and others shouldn't?

You have no such right. You have NEVER had that right.

The right in the 4th has never been NO search & seizure. It's no UNREASONABLE search and seizure. IMO, that's all too often forgotten here.

Fern

And how does the 4th dictate that reasonableness is to be determined?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Bolded part dictates how reasonableness is to be determined. Granted it's a little fuzzy, but it's not possible to fully quantify these things. There will always be grey areas and, unfortunately, reasonableness is one of those areas.

ZV

You even bolded the important part but failed to notice it. The Bush administration isn't holding up the whole "supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" end of the bargain. The lazy bastards couldn't be bothered to tell anybody they were doing the wiretaps. That's the problem.

 

[FallenHero]

The author of that study, Kellermann, automatically makes me suspect its methods.

EDIT: He used his already debunked study to back up his assertion. The OP fails. Next.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Perknose
I happen to own four firearms. NONE make me feel safer in my home.

If you need a firearm to feel safe in your home, I feel sorry for your fearful and pathetic ass. Move somewhere safer or, please, just get some fucking therapy.

And, unless and until you can legally and without let or hindrance purchase stinger missles and/or other truly heavy ordnance, your pathetic lie to yourself that your 2nd amendment rights as presently construed protect you against the capricious wrath of the federal or state government in any meaningful way are a juvenile illusion.

Well you are somewhat correct in the fact that if we can not have stingers and true military hardware, we really don't stand a chance against the mighty US military machine. I mean, poorly trained and poorly equipped insurgents in Iraq are not killing any soldiers and are not making the spineless snivling dolts such as the likes of you call for the withdrawl of troops.

Who do you think the US can bomb IN America?

If you own firearms nd don't believe in the 2nd Amendment you are either another internet liar or you live in a secluded community and believe that you are safe because you live in a wealthy neighborhood. You are the one that needs to get some therapy.
Here is a interview with a guy that killed 2 people because he wanted to go where "all the rich white people are"
NSFW language in interview
Here is the mind set of people that are out there. They do not give 2 squirts of piss about you, your family and your life. They will kill you because you are there.
Now if you want to lay down and accept it when the time could come, then go lay in traffic now and just get it over with.
The notion that you will ALMOST never need a gun is ludicrous. You may never need to use car insurance, or home insurance but you have those. I'd rather have the means to protect myself and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Having worked in law enforcement, I have seen what people are really like in society. They are complete shit. IT doesn't matter where you live or what skin color they are.

I have 2 children in my house, and one of them is severely autistic. But I still keep guns in the house. Being a gun owner means you need to be a Safety First kind of person. That means keeping guns locked up, and any keys to safes out of reach of children. I keep a hand gun on me at all times. When I'm in bed, I have the gun in the safe next to the bed. All I have to do is stick my thumb on the biometric reader and i have access.

Just because you are not capable of being safe, does not give you the authority to strip me of my rights as spelled out in the Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court. If you are scared of them and do not like them, that is your right, but it is not your right to try and take my rights away.

 

[child of wonder]

It's debatable whether having a gun in the home protects one from crime however it is not debatable that any law abiding citizen has the right to own a gun if they choose.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: ericlp
This brings up a point.

If you want to own a car, you got to get a permit to drive the take a written and a drivers test to get a license to drive. Now if you want to ride a scooter above 50CC, you need to take a riders training/safety course.

Tho, if you want to be a gun owner and buy a hand gun, no problem, you get to wait 15 days then presto! Here ya go! Have fun! Why not make em take a safety course and read up on gun ethics to pass a written test about the gun they purchased and a correct way to clean/store/lock it. I'd feel a hell of a lot better knowing that someone understands what he/she just purchased.

Because there is no clause in the US Constitution that says you have a right to drive a car or more appropriately to when it was written, you have no right to have a horse and buggy.

A militia is not the National Guard. A militia is any man capable of picking up arms in defense of his country. That means real men that don't drive hybrid cars.
And as typically with anti-gunners, you do not know the facts of the situation. There is no 15 day waiting period.
As far as taking a class to understand what I just purchased? Why? Should you have to take a class and learn how to clean, change the engine oil, transmission fluid, brake fluid on a car you just bought?
Bought a new cutlery set? Well you better take a class so you know how to maintain it, and keep them away from small little hands. THINK OF THE CHILDREN


American Dad has it right again.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Rainsford

And yet, they let you drive a car until you screw it up badly or often enough, then they take away your legal right to drive. I'm sure you would object to them preemptively taking away that privilege even though there are an awful lot of bad drivers out there. There are even a lot of people that willfully violate the driving laws to to the point of hazard.


Sure, let's do something about the idiots that have guns. What, beyond enforcing the current laws, I don't know. Just like I don't know how to keep hazardous drivers off the road. But I wouldn't ban guns anymore than I would cars. And quoting statistics about gun accidents is as useless for controlling gun ownership as it is to quote auto accident stats to keep people from driving. But, nevertheless, people quote the gun stats seldom for any reason but to suggest that no one should have them.

Here in lies the problem. You do not have a legal right to drive. By obtaining a drivers license and passing a test you are given permission by the issuing state to drive. If you had a right to drive you could go out and drive with impunity at any age.