The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.
05 Jan 2015, 2:25 am
cathylynn wrote:
obama lifted the ban, but congress hasn't funded any research. the NRA is afraid of more information showing that the net effect of owning a gun for protection is likely to be negative.
From memory, weren't they worried that people would do more biased studies like the one in this thread (using that one to show that owning a firearm is "bad" without explaining what the study is detailing, is pretty much showing bias)?
I've yet to find an unbiased study that shows a net negative for firearm ownership in regards to criminal justice. They pretty much show no positive or negative when you don't cherry pick.
Last edited by Dillogic on 05 Jan 2015, 2:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
05 Jan 2015, 2:26 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think a lot of problems could be solved with voice recognition triggers or ones that only recognize the finger of the person who owns the gun. Just think, such weapons could not be accidentally discharged by kids nor could someone you are trying to shoot grab your gun and shoot you instead.
The technology isn't there, and I wouldn't want it if it was. I need my gun to work 100% of the time, and introducing complicated electronics into the mix is only going to reduce the chances of that, to say nothing of the added weight and cost.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 2:27 am
Dillogic wrote:
From memory, weren't they worried that people would do more biased studies like the one in this thread (using that one to show that owning a firearm is "bad" without explaining what the study is detailing, is pretty much showing bias).
Pretty much, no one wanted tax dollars going to junk science.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 2:38 am
Dox47 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think a lot of problems could be solved with voice recognition triggers or ones that only recognize the finger of the person who owns the gun. Just think, such weapons could not be accidentally discharged by kids nor could someone you are trying to shoot grab your gun and shoot you instead.
The technology isn't there, and I wouldn't want it if it was. I need my gun to work 100% of the time, and introducing complicated electronics into the mix is only going to reduce the chances of that, to say nothing of the added weight and cost.
The technology would have to be something that worked 100% of the time.
05 Jan 2015, 2:43 am
Dillogic wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
obama lifted the ban, but congress hasn't funded any research. the NRA is afraid of more information showing that the net effect of owning a gun for protection is likely to be negative.
From memory, weren't they worried that people would do more biased studies like the one in this thread (using that one to show that owning a firearm is "bad" without explaining what the study is detailing, is pretty much showing bias)?
I've yet to find an unbiased study that shows a net negative for firearm ownership in regards to criminal justice. They pretty much show no positive or negative when you don't cherry pick.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
05 Jan 2015, 2:49 am
cathylynn wrote:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/medsentgun1.htm
Quote:
A significant portion of the gun control agenda, not only of the public health but the entire health advocacy establishment, in fact, comes from Dr. Kellermann's landmark articles, particularly "Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1993.4 And yet, much of the methodology, not to mention conclusions in the article have been questioned by numerous investigators.5-7
Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve 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."5
In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.
All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.
Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.
This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.
Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*
As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6
However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."
Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve 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."5
In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.
All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.
Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.
This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.
Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*
As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6
However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."
There's much more...
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 2:52 am
gun violence, responsible for 30,000 US deaths per year, is a public health issue. in some states, the NRA has gotten passed bans on doctors being allowed to ask if there is a gun in the home. the NRA isn't interested in truth or even your right to bear arms. all they care about is that gun manufacturers make lots of money.
05 Jan 2015, 2:55 am
Dox47 wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0073291506
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/medsentgun1.htm
Quote:
A significant portion of the gun control agenda, not only of the public health but the entire health advocacy establishment, in fact, comes from Dr. Kellermann's landmark articles, particularly "Gun Ownership As a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1993.4 And yet, much of the methodology, not to mention conclusions in the article have been questioned by numerous investigators.5-7
Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve 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."5
In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.
All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.
Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.
This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.
Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*
As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6
However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."
Since at least the mid-1980s, Dr. Kellermann (and associates), whose work had been heavily-funded by the CDC, published a series of studies purporting to show that persons who keep guns in the home are more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don¹t. In a 1986 NEJM paper, Dr. Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their "scientific research" proved that defending oneself or one¹s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counter productive, claiming "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."8
In a critical review and now classic article published in the March 1994 issue of the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Dr. Edgar Suter, Chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), found evidence of "methodologic and conceptual errors," such as prejudicially truncated data and the listing of "the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors."5 Moreover, the gun control researchers failed to consider and underestimated the protective benefits of guns. Dr. Suter writes: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected ‹ not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 - 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve 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."5
In 1993, in his landmark and much cited NEJM article (and the research, again, heavily funded by the CDC), Dr. Kellermann attempted to show again that guns in the home are a greater risk to the victims than to the assailants.4 Despite valid criticisms by reputable scholars of his previous works (including the 1986 study), Dr. Kellermann ignored the criticisms and again used the same methodology. He also used study populations with disproportionately high rates of serious psychosocial dysfunction from three selected state counties, known to be unrepresentative of the general U.S. population. For example, 53 percent of the case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 31 percent had a household history of illicit drug use, 32 percent had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, and 17 percent had a family member hurt so seriously in a domestic altercation that prompt medical attention was required. Moreover, both the case studies and control groups in this analysis had a very high incidence of financial instability. In fact, in this study, gun ownership, the supposedly high risk factor for homicide was not one of the most strongly associated factors for being murdered. Drinking, illicit drugs, living alone, history of family violence, living in a rented home were all greater individual risk factors for being murdered than a gun in the home. One must conclude there is no basis to apply the conclusions of this study to the general population.
All of these are factors that, as Dr. Suter pointed out, "would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence and homicide."5 It goes without saying, the results of such a study on gun homicides, selecting this sort of unrepresentative population sample, nullify the authors' generalizations, and their preordained, conclusions can not be extrapolated to the general population.
Moreover, although the 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study purported to show that the homicide victims were killed with a gun ordinarily kept in the home, the fact is that as Kates and associates point out 71.1 percent of the victims were killed by assailants who did not live in the victims¹ household using guns presumably not kept in that home.6
While Kellermann and associates began with 444 cases of homicides in the home, cases were dropped from the study for a variety of reasons, and in the end, only 316 matched pairs were used in the final analysis, representing only 71.2 percent of the original 444 homicide cases.
This reduction increased tremendously the chance for sampling bias. Analysis of why 28.8 percent of the cases were dropped would have helped ascertain if the study was compromised by the existence of such biases, but Dr. Kellermann, in an unprecedented move, refused to release his data and make it available for other researchers to analyze.
Likewise, Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has written me that knowledge about what guns were kept in the home is essential, but this data in his study was never released by Dr. Kellermann: "The most likely bit of data that he would want to withhold is information as to whether the gun used in the gun homicides was kept in the home of the victim."*
As Kates and associates point out, "The validity of the NEJM 1993 study¹s conclusions depend on the control group matching the homicide cases in every way (except, of course, for the occurrence of the homicide)."6
However, in this study, the controls collected did not match the cases in many ways (i.e., for example, in the amount of substance abuse, single parent versus two parent homes, etc.) contributing to further untoward effects, and decreasing the inference that can legitimately be drawn from the data of this study. Be that as it may, "The conclusion that gun ownership is a risk factor for homicide derives from the finding of a gun in 45.4 percent of the homicide case households, but in only 35.8 percent of the control household. Whether that finding is accurate, however, depends on the truthfulness of control group interviewees in admitting the presence of a gun or guns in the home."
There's much more...
the confounding factors cited were accounted for. the people arguing with the nejm article don't or won't understand the science.
Last edited by cathylynn on 05 Jan 2015, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
05 Jan 2015, 2:59 am
cathylynn wrote:
gun violence, responsible for 30,000 US deaths per year, is a public health issue.
According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, which makes the rest of those self defense and suicides, but you knew that, right? It sounds more impressive if you lump them all together like that, though it's not very honest. Feel free to address the suicides as a health issue, the rest is a crime one.
cathylynn wrote:
in some states, the NRA has gotten passed bans on doctors being allowed to ask if there is a gun in the home.
And? It's none of your doctor's business, and IIRC it was one state, Florida, and I'm not even sure if the NRA had anything to do with it.
cathylynn wrote:
the NRA isn't interested in truth or even your right to bear arms. all they care about is that gun manufacturers make lots of money.
You know even less about the NRA than you know about guns, or the politics of science, and you don't seem to know much about either of those things to start with.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 3:00 am
cathylynn wrote:
the confounding factors cited were controlled for. the people arguing with the nejm article don't or won't understand the science.
No, they were not, I suggest you read the study you're citing, as I've been reading it for years and likely know it better than you do.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 3:08 am
I just saw on a show the woman who was shot by her two year old son in Idaho had gotten a holster/purse for Christmas and she had the gun in that purse and her child retrieved it anyway. It also said a young child can pull any trigger, it's not that difficult to do.
Now it makes more sense. She got the holster purse and I bet she didn't think such a young child could find the gun and get it out since it's in it's own zipper compartment and it was in a built in holster, too. Sheds more light on the situation.
05 Jan 2015, 3:13 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It also said a young child can pull any trigger, it's not that difficult to do.
Whoever said that has no idea what they're talking about, double action triggers are commonly in the 8-12 lb range, and can go a lot higher than that, as I once owned a Polish automatic with a 34lb trigger pull. Now a single action with the safety off or a hybrid action can be much lighter, in the 4-6lb range, but AFAIK we still don't know the make and model of the gun.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
05 Jan 2015, 3:53 am
It was someone affiliated with some gun organization and he was on Inside Edition. Didn't get his name and can't remember which organization it was. Wasn't the NRA, it was one I had never heard of before. Some revolver thing, maybe?
Anyway, I just read another online article and it is rude so I won't post a link. I read this lady came from a gun family and they are gun people, which came from her father. not the writer of the article.
Believe me, there are none more gunnier than my country relatives and they do not feel the need to have a gun with them at all times, only when they are doing something that requires a gun. They do not feel the need to always have the gun with them and if they do, just don't tell anyone, they make sure no one can get near wherever that gun may be. Her and her family might think of themselves as "gun people" but they aren't old skool if they have to have a gun with them just to have one and be able to say they are "gun people." Old Skool gun people like my Uncle always put safety first and the first rule we were all taught is to respect the gun at all times, not just brandish it like it's a toy. This isn't the real kind of "gun people" if they throw all manner of safety out the window just to convince everyone, including themselves, they are indeed "gun people."
If you truly are, you respect what that gun is capable of a bit better than that or you're fake and wannabe as far as I'm concerned.
05 Jan 2015, 4:23 am
cathylynn wrote:
new england journal of medicine is as stringent in ethics and as mainstream as any publisher of studies. the study showed that having a gun in the home, after adjustment for other factors, was associated with almost three times the risk of being a victim of homicide. this study is what prompted the NRA to get congress to ban studies.
The study is useless due to the methodology used.
You can't expect to get an unbiased and reasonable outcome when you use unreasonable controls.
If half of all the people killed in the study have prior arrests, you're intentionally pushing it outside of realistic boundaries.
The study will only mean something if you use reasonable controls.
05 Jan 2015, 4:28 am
cathylynn wrote:
gun violence, responsible for 30,000 US deaths per year, is a public health issue. in some states, the NRA has gotten passed bans on doctors being allowed to ask if there is a gun in the home. the NRA isn't interested in truth or even your right to bear arms. all they care about is that gun manufacturers make lots of money.
And tell me, remove the firearms and those 30,000 people wouldn't have been killed in some other way? See how logic goes. Less than 99.9999 percent of firearm owners murder someone with such, yet it's seen as a problem; if that's all it takes to make a problem, then you're going to have a lot of things to worry about. Lobby cigarettes if you truly cared.
Usually, you don't want doctors asking this because they can have unreasonable powers, say if you seek out mental illness treatment -- fear that you will have firearms taken due to seeking treatment will mean people won't seek treatment. I recall reading that mental health officials want it removed too, because it'll stop people seeking treatment.
That's unfounded. Manufacturers make lots of money because people buy them; that's capitalism. They don't do enough to protect the right to bear arms, as they never protest inclusion of other arms that are already banned. If you read into it, they're reactionary rather than proactive.
Last edited by Dillogic on 05 Jan 2015, 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
05 Jan 2015, 4:30 am
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It was someone affiliated with some gun organization and he was on Inside Edition. Didn't get his name and can't remember which organization it was. Wasn't the NRA, it was one I had never heard of before. Some revolver thing, maybe?
Anyway, I just read another online article and it is rude so I won't post a link. I read this lady came from a gun family and they are gun people, which came from her father. not the writer of the article.
Believe me, there are none more gunnier than my country relatives and they do not feel the need to have a gun with them at all times, only when they are doing something that requires a gun. They do not feel the need to always have the gun with them and if they do, just don't tell anyone, they make sure no one can get near wherever that gun may be. Her and her family might think of themselves as "gun people" but they aren't old skool if they have to have a gun with them just to have one and be able to say they are "gun people." Old Skool gun people like my Uncle always put safety first and the first rule we were all taught is to respect the gun at all times, not just brandish it like it's a toy. This isn't the real kind of "gun people" if they throw all manner of safety out the window just to convince everyone, including themselves, they are indeed "gun people."
If you truly are, you respect what that gun is capable of a bit better than that or you're fake and wannabe as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, I just read another online article and it is rude so I won't post a link. I read this lady came from a gun family and they are gun people, which came from her father. not the writer of the article.
Believe me, there are none more gunnier than my country relatives and they do not feel the need to have a gun with them at all times, only when they are doing something that requires a gun. They do not feel the need to always have the gun with them and if they do, just don't tell anyone, they make sure no one can get near wherever that gun may be. Her and her family might think of themselves as "gun people" but they aren't old skool if they have to have a gun with them just to have one and be able to say they are "gun people." Old Skool gun people like my Uncle always put safety first and the first rule we were all taught is to respect the gun at all times, not just brandish it like it's a toy. This isn't the real kind of "gun people" if they throw all manner of safety out the window just to convince everyone, including themselves, they are indeed "gun people."
If you truly are, you respect what that gun is capable of a bit better than that or you're fake and wannabe as far as I'm concerned.
o.O being gun people doesn't equal they walk around telling everyone they have it. she had it in her purse concealed and likely wasn't walking around telling people. the point of carrying a gun on you all the time is you don't know when you'll need it, or trust me we'd just go get a much better one like a rifle. people carry pistols cause it's not practical to carry a rifle with you everywhere. we don't yet have the technology to predict crimes, so its carry and probably never need it but if need it you have it.
also carrying a gun isn't brandishing it. that would be walking around with it in your hand all the time, which wasn't happening in this case.
i don't get all this craziness. if you carry a gun for defense you carry it on you, loaded, whenever you can. if you carry it unloaded, or leave it at home except for ____ situation then you should just carry a club or not carry at all.
