Women in a house with a gun much more likely to be shot.

you are bullshit to us. most of what you and that deadhead idiot post get slaughtered by just as many if not more articles proving your "facts" wrong. so what do you do? you either get angry and accuse anyone who disagrees as idiots and then start new posts that are just as inaccurate. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

That's your OPINION... it means nothing. You don't know what it means to prove something, idiot. Except that you're a goddamn fool. You do a good job of that.

A knife has many uses. A gun is designed for one thing... Originally Posted by WombRaider

so does a large sewing needle. remember your total failure to prove how violent you claim America is?

knit one pearl two idiot

IB Hankering slapped you libtards upside yo dumbass heads.



good night libtards. the party's OVER!

so does a large sewing needle. remember your total failure to prove how violent you claim America is?

knit one pearl two idiot

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'm pretty sure I remember you posting about how violent Chicago was and yet here you are trying to crawfish out of it and say that America isn't violent. You are an absolute fucking moron. Go do some research and let the adults talk, mmmmk?

No one is saying you can't commit a violent crime with another instrument, you fucktard, we're saying that guns make it much easier to pile up mass casualties. There are always exception to every rule, but in general this is true.

JD slapped you libtards upside yo dumbass heads.



good night libtards. the party's OVER! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

ONE study? I can go get you ten studies, peer reviewed ones, that say global warming is real. And you wouldn't believe them, so fuck yourself and your harvard study, you piece of disingenuous shit.


NIGHT fucktards

I'm pretty sure I remember you posting about how violent Chicago was and yet here you are trying to crawfish out of it and say that America isn't violent. You are an absolute fucking moron. Go do some research and let the adults talk, mmmmk?

No one is saying you can't commit a violent crime with another instrument, you fucktard, we're saying that guns make it much easier to pile up mass casualties. There are always exception to every rule, but in general this is true. Originally Posted by WombRaider

crawfish this dicknose. i never said America does not have crime. what i have consistently said is a Nation where law abiding citizens can arm themselves for protection is a safer nation and the facts prove it. Most criminals are cowards. they rely on strength in numbers for one, and fear in general. an armed person has less to fear. and it's a fact that in States were CHL's are allowed, the very fact that criminals must wonder if the "mark" they are considering robbing might be armed deters crime.

ONE study? I can go get you ten studies, peer reviewed ones, that say global warming is real. And you wouldn't believe them, so fuck yourself and your harvard study, you piece of disingenuous shit.


NIGHT fucktards Originally Posted by WombRaider

what's global warming? i believe they had to change their term to Climate change because the facts didn't match up. either way its a Unicorn .. does not exist.

just like this mulatto's "Hope and Change" two for one sale.

crawfish this dicknose. i never said America does not have crime. what i have consistently said is a Nation where law abiding citizens can arm themselves for protection is a safer nation and the facts prove it. Most criminals are cowards. they rely on strength in numbers for one, and fear in general. an armed person has less to fear. and it's a fact that in States were CHL's are allowed, the very fact that criminals must wonder if the "mark" they are considering robbing might be armed deters crime.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the facts DO NOT prove it. One study? You're hanging your entire point on one fucking study. That is not proof.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

"No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html

the facts DO NOT prove it. One study? You're hanging your entire point on one fucking study. That is not proof.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

"No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

go have your stroke/Aneurysm/Heart attack. i'd worry about your health if i a gave fuck about you.

here's woonby at his PC having a heart attack wondering why all us "idiots" don't agree with everything he posts.

go have your stroke/Aneurysm/Heart attack. i'd worry about your health if i a gave fuck about you.

here's woonby at his PC having a heart attack wondering why all us "idiots" don't agree with everything he posts.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

See, I present you with facts and you are not moved at all, yet you want me to be moved by your bullshit. Go fuck yourself.

You're the idiot. It's not disputable that homeowners who keep guns are much much more likely to end up having the gun used against them rather than in self-defense. That's been known for decades and the number of citations from scholarly journals are numerous and quite easy to find.

So, shut the fuck up and find a topic to discuss where you have some semblance of knowledge.

This is representative but there is a huge amount of research that supports the assertion.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Kellermann AL, et al. J Trauma. 1998.
Show full citation

Authors

Kellermann AL1, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.Author information

• 1Center for Injury Control, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Citation

J Trauma. 1998 Aug;45(2):263-7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.

METHODS: We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

PMID

9715182 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Originally Posted by timpage

I concede the statistics in your cited study are correct as far as it goes, but a point is being missed. How many homes are not burglarized, and how many homeowners are not killed, because of the deterrent effect of guns?
It could be thousands. No way to put a number to it, but you know it is there. Your own life might have been saved by the fact that people who want to harm you (and I imagine there are many) know you have weapons in your home.

So yes, I accept the fact that some people get killed because guns are available, and they wouldn't die otherwise. Can you accept that other people's lives are saved because of guns? At that point, we are merely arguing over the numbers.

the facts DO NOT prove it. One study? You're hanging your entire point on one fucking study. That is not proof.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

"No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

i'l counter your googling with this. and this by the way comes from the stomping grounds of the current Mulatto in Chief, a notorious anti-guns rights libtard.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-pe/?page=all

By Kelly Riddell - The Washington Times - Sunday, August 24, 2014


An 86-year-old Illinois man with a concealed carry permit fired his weapon at an armed robbery suspect fleeing police last month, stopping the man in his tracks and allowing the police to make an arrest.


Law enforcement authorities described the man as “a model citizen” who “helped others avoid being victims” at an AT&T store outside Chicago where he witnessed the holdup. The man, whose identity was withheld from the press, prevented others from entering the store during the theft.


Police said the robber harassed customers and pistol-whipped one.
PHOTOS: Best concealed carry handguns
Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits this year, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.


“It isn’t any coincidence crime rates started to go down when concealed carry was permitted. Just the idea that the criminals don’t know who’s armed and who isn’t has a deterrence effect,” said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. “The police department hasn’t changed a single tactic — they haven’t announced a shift in policy or of course — and yet you have these incredible numbers.”


As of July 29 the state had 83,183 applications for concealed carry and had issued 68,549 licenses. By the end of the year, Mr. Pearson estimates, 100,000 Illinois citizens will be packing. When Illinois began processing requests in January, gun training and shooting classes — which are required for the application — were filling up before the rifle association was able to schedule them, Mr. Pearson said.
PHOTOS: Top 10 handguns in the U.S.
“The temperature would be 40 below, and you’d have these guys out on the range, having to crack off the ice from their guns to see the target,” Mr. Pearson said. “But they’d do it, because they were that passionate about getting their license.”


The demand has slowed this summer, but Mr. Pearson expects the state to issue about 300,000 concealed carry permits when all is said and done.


Illinois became the 50th state in the nation to issue concealed weapons permits. An individual permit costs about $600 and requires at least 16 hours of classes.


Let's see .. how many states are there? 50.



The Chicago Police Department has credited better police work as a reason for the lower crime rates this year. Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy noted the confiscation of more than 1,300 illegal guns in the first three months of the year, better police training and “intelligent policing strategies.”


The Chicago Police Department didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Washington Times.


However, the impact of concealed carry can’t be dismissed. Instead of creating more crimes, which many gun control advocates warn, increased concealed carry rates have coincided with lower rates of crime.


A July study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that 11.1 million Americans have permits to carry concealed weapons, a 147 percent increase from 4.5 million seven years ago. Meanwhile, homicide and other violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.


“There’s a lot of academic research that’s been done on this, and if you look at the peer-reviewed studies, the bottom line is a large majority find a benefit of concealed carry on crime rates — and, at worst, there’s no cost,” said John Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center based in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. “You can deter criminals with longer prison sentences and penalties, but arming people with the right to defend themselves with a gun is also a deterrence.”


Within Illinois, Cook County, which encompasses Chicago, has the state’s largest number of concealed carry applications, with 28,552 requests, according to the county’s website. Accounting for population, however, less than 1 percent are carrying.


Mason County has the top per-capita rate in Illinois, with 14 percent of its residents holding concealed carry licenses, followed by Shelby County, with 9 percent.


“When I talk to folks that are supporters of concealed carry here, a lot of them want to get their permits so they can keep a gun in the car just so they have it when they travel to bigger towns and cities,” said Shelby County Sheriff Michael Miller.


Shelby County is in southwestern Illinois, about an hour and 45 minutes driving time from St. Louis. Its crime rate is low, and the majority of charges are domestic-related, Sheriff Miller said. He doesn’t anticipate concealed carry to change the statistics much.


“These are folks who just want to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Sheriff Miller said. “Luckily, we don’t have a gang problem or any serious violent crime. Our types are just rednecks that like to hunt and fish.”


Mason County Sheriff Paul Gann said it’s too early to tell whether an increased carry rate will have an influence on crime rates.

“What I can tell you is we haven’t seen a spike in crime,” said Mr. Gann. “We haven’t seen a spike in anything that’s gun-related — brandishing a firearm, shootings, robberies, nothing. These are law-abiding individuals.”


From a national perspective, Florida has the most active concealed carry permits, at nearly 1.3 million. Texas is second, with just over 708,000. Hawaii, at 183, has the fewest of states whose data were available.


At 300,000 concealed carry licenses, Illinois would compare with Virginia, which has 363,274, and Alabama, with 379,917.





Copyright © 2015 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

See, I present you with facts and you are not moved at all, yet you want me to be moved by your bullshit. Go fuck yourself. Originally Posted by WombRaider

you present me with shit. i respond with facts that prove your "facts" are shit. you get pissed and post more shit.

stop posting SHIT!

the facts DO NOT prove it. One study? You're hanging your entire point on one fucking study. That is not proof.

BULL FUCKING SHIT

"No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...e391_blog.html Originally Posted by WombRaider

It's a Harvard study resourcing other studies and the raw data from the WHO and CDC, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, and it certainly refutes your jackass notion that more guns automatically equates to more murders, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

"[T]wo recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then‐ extant studies." (Harvard)

comparing the US to third world nations is foolish, its comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be to compare to countries like the UK, Australia etc

Gun deaths per 100,000 people
United States10.64
United Kingdom0.26
Australia0.86
Denmark1.28