Lol sure, believe that being unarmed is better than having a means to defend yourself, and that people who carry guns stuffed in their pants represent most lawful gun owners. I wouldn't have to worry about my daughter jogging alone, since she is already comfortable with a firearm and knows how to use it. The woman in question had time to fight back, and was covered in self defense wounds. That means she had time to pull a weapon and use it. The gun at the front door did indeed save many lives, as the security guards actions are credited with allowing most people in the club to escape. The one's who died were the ones who were shot in the initial opening, and left to bleed out for 3 hours while the cops milled around outside.
Wait, they included "firearms" in homocides and suicides. What about both in general? But the fact is firearms don't increase suicides.
There you go again linking a study that says the simple existence of a firearm in a home causes more homicide and suicide. The only thing that determines the odds of a gun being used in a violent way is the prevalence of homicidal or suicidal people in said home.
Then, please. Arm your daughter and send her out alone to jog in a wilderness area on Long Island. Tell her she's perfectly safe as long as she has that gun. No one would dare jump from behind a tree and crack her skull with a bat and, of course, we all know none of the bad guys are ever armed. A gun is no substitute for a brain and will not protect you from your own stupidity. The ARMED police officer could not stop the attack. The ARMED officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge could not stop those attacks. And, of course, having those firearms did not prevent some 175,000 of them being stolen in 2012.
You make no sense whatsoever, I used to run through Central Park (Manhattan) NYC, and Prospect Park, Brooklyn NY, had quite a few try to run out at me, those paths are clear of trees, there is at least 10 - 20 feet between paths and trees, and it is faster to draw a sidearm than it is for an attacker to close such a distance, attacker 0, defender 100 points ! score, attacker ends up in morgue.
This is not Central Park. "On Tuesday, Philip found his daughter’s battered and bruised body during a search with cops in a marsh off a jogging path in Spring Creek Park, about four hours after she failed to return from a nightly run. Her dad usually accompanied her but was recovering from a back injury, and she went out alone against his wishes." Her body was found 15 feet from the path. here is YET AGAIN a photo of the park. View attachment 45138
You have some areas, Harlem, NYC, where there is much drug activity, many people also own firearms for various reasons, these are not your typical legitimate law abiding firearms owners, these are often people with past very long criminal convictions and histories of violence, illegally owning firearms and tossing them around like dirty socks, kids find them and shoot a school chum, or through a wall and kill a neighbor, this is atypical behavior among Millions of legitimate gun owners. However, this is what a Physician in a typical ER like Harlem Hospital sees daily and might think this is typical of all gun owners everywhere. Studies based on such statistics are not an accurate depiction of Millions of legitimate gun owners, because the majority of legitimate gun owners are NOT getting into trouble as are single Mothers that carelessly own a gun, tire of carrying it and carelessly stash it somewhere a child can access it and use it to shoot an innocent friend or neighbor.
No, you have no point, your simplistic drivel simply makes no sense, a Crime was committed against an innocent victim, you do not care enough except to use it to further a selfish self serving Political Agenda, maybe banning Guns ?
Her situational awareness is quite good thanks for the concern, as is her aim. You're welcome to keep hoping criminals won't go into one of your safe spaces. The armed officer allowed many to escape, and also trapped the shooter. Better than no one being armed since more would have died, and he probably would have escaped. The armed officers in dallas most definitely stopped the attack by firing back, forcing the attacker to be cornered before blowing his face off with explosives. Criminals gonna criminal, which is a great reason to lock them up for life or execute them for more heinous offenses. Liberals are the ones that keep letting them out because prison is mean.
Even better, when Daughter shoots and ends the Criminals freak Criminal career, he ain't going to offend again, just make sure Daughter has the best Gun money can buy and lots of practice !
Meaning that you either do not believe, or simply do not care, that danger can travel freely, and encounter random individuals wherever they may be. There is no going somewhere else to be had, as every given location has an equal potential of being dangerous.
The Anti Gun People poo poo everyone's ability to use a Gun in self defense, yet every day, People successfully use Guns in self defense, what do the Gun Ban Lovers say ? such evidence is anecdotal in nature, yet quote tripe by VPC or Mother Jugs, or Josh Sugarloaf, or some other unsubstantiated Liar, when all evidence proves Guns are important as a first choice for personal Defense.
She is learning everything the Marine Corps taught me. She's still young, but at 9 she's a tack driver with a 10/22 and an ar-15. We're working on her handgun skills now.
Please! It was stated that had this woman been carrying, she would have been safe. That is simply malarkey! She made a bad decision. The decision she made put her at risk. The presence of a theoretical gun would not have stopped the attack and, after all, isn't better to prevent an attack than to try defending against one? I've not said a word here about "banning guns." The agenda is yours. My point is and is only that your brain offers you far more protection than any firearm ever could.
UH UH UH!!! "Situational awareness" is forbidden. It implies using the brain and making safe decisions. Not allowed because you have a firearm which, of course, more than makes up for any bad decisions. The armed officers in Dallas and Baton rouge did not stop the attack. They responded once it was already underway. The attacker KNEW he was attacking an armed target but attacked anyway. Arming yourself only creates a false sense of security. It prevents nothing.
And how does my having a gun stop that? I go places all the time. To the movies, to my kids' schools, shopping, to the Y. I travel around the country for work some 40 weeks a year. I rarely feel threatened because I avoid situations that put me unnecessarily at risk and where there is risk I do what I can to minimize it. A gun is no substitute for a working brain.
And again, you know not of what you speak, I am a firearms Instructor, and can tell you, a firearm is good protection, it is not a false sense of security, I have defended myself many times, just now, I had an intruder, a drug fiend looking for something to steal, and I was able to take care of the situation, the man was just carted away, he will not offend again. So much for your imagined false sense of security.
You are free to live your life unarmed... That is what Liberty is about, freedom of choice. If you chose to avoid potential areas of danger that is great if you know where the dangerous areas are but criminals don't limit themselves to specific areas, like any predator they often seek out places of easy, unaware prey. You can do all the recommended things to avoid being struck by lightning, but that doesn't mean you can always be guaranteed to avoid it... I had a friend struck and killed by lightning on a mountain in Wyoming where the sky was devoid of clouds. If you wish the comfort and superiority of your opinion to walk about unarmed, have at it. As for your statement about a gun being no substitute for a working brain...that is true, but it isn't a binary one or the other proposition as you are implying. Most of those of us that carry guns train, maintain tactical knowledge, situational awareness, and are not looking for a gun or any kind of fight... The use of a weapon is a thing of last resort, because most of us know the moment we pull a trigger our and survive can be a legal and financial nightmare in the aftermath, but that is better than not having an after. I have had several situations where having a weapon has saved my life and I have been in more than one unavoidable gun fight... Ones I would have avoided if possible, but it unfortunately wasn't. As for a gun preventing nothing, a gun has prevented my death. There is a thread on this site where many other deaths or serious injuries have been prevented. Every year thousands of people successfully defend their lives. Having a gun prevents nothing? I would suggest that doesn't even approach any level of common sense or police and the military would go about unarmed. As for a gun providing a sense of security, it's one among many tool available for use if the need arises. Does having a fire extinguisher or fire detector in your home provide a sense of security, does having a jack in your care provide a sense of security, does having a first aid in your home or vehicle provide a sense of security? Being reasonably prepared with the tools and knowledge to handle emergencies is using your brain rather than leaving your fate to the winds of chance. Having a gun to me is not different than having a fire extinguisher in my home, and I think little more of it other than knowing carrying a gun also carries with it an understanding of the reponsibility and accountability that goes with that choice. When I carry a gun, I will go to great lengths to avoid using it in any manner, including walking away from any potential volatile situation, eating crow, anything I need to do. There is only one reason to ever reach for a gun, if I or someone else is in clear and immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured. No amount of weapons, knowledge or training can prevent being killed in an ambush as many a soldier or police officer's death attests, but, in many situations there is warning, there are countless successful defenses, and in the even of an ambush, those left standing after the initial attack have the opportunity to mount a defense and limit the damage as happened in Dallas. I hope I never have to use a gun, I hope my house never catches fire, I hope never to have a flat tire, I hope a lot of things never happen, but if they do I am reasonable prepared, arm myself with knowledge, and, if needed, will deal with what I have to deal with the best I can. Do what you wish, your life. Your opinion and what you think is ultimately immaterial to me.
Please! In you mind. But, of course being a "firearms instructor" means you don't have to worry about bad decisions because your gun will make up the gap so stuff like this: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/03/justice/texas-sniper-killed/ Handing a known psychotic a firearm and this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-was-too-much-for-her/?utm_term=.7a951b682287 Handing an UZI to an 8 year old girl never happened. Just more lies from the MSM. A firearm is no substitute for a brain.
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean the study survived being critisized or debunked. I did read your article. I was aware of the publication. Did you read the entire study? The objective of the study was to use mortality follow-back surveys to The conclusion noted in the Abstract indicated, Though out their article they use the word associated, where they mean to identify a correlation. They site Kellermans article where he reached a conclusion based on a sample of 127 incidences. They site Hemenways studies on guns and violence in the home and suicide risks associated with gun ownership from studies often repeated by many in the media, but whose methodologies were found to be flawed as it was based on proxy interviews interviews of survivors who may or may not have been informed of the actual facts of each case. This study used proxy interviews as well. The problem with proxy interviews from family, friends, etc. The problem with proxy interviews is that family, friends, etc. may or may not know the facts across all questions, yet become part of the analysis, which may be based on pure conjecture on the part of family and friends. For instance, not a single member of my family would know the answer to any of the questions posed by the interview. One problem with the interview process is that there are a significant number of questions related to firearms where the shear preponderance of these questions to a proxy has the potential to bias a response which they acknowledge, This statement in itself lends doubt to their methodology, because no controlling for these factors obviate any Scientific method of approach and rather become an exercise in making statistical correlations within the constraints of their methodology. Regardless, the conclusion they indicate an association, a correlation (which does not mean causation) between guns in the home and risk of a violent death and then make declarative statement, This statement doesnt reflect that more people die each year from poisons, adverse reactions to various drugs, and other accidents. But, to continue, they further qualify by saying, This last statement is what many of these types of studies ignore. What is the balance of benefit to risk? For instance, there are over 100,000 people that die each year from adverse reactions to anti-biotics, and that doesnt include those that end up in emergency rooms and hospitalized, yet, anti-biotics are still prescribed why? Because they save more lives than are lost. So, in this study, the authors themselves cast doubt on the findings and indicate the flaws inherent in the study. In reading the study, many will not evaluate the entire study, but rather look no further than the abstract or the declarative statements of correlation and decide the correlation is fact. If you really understand the basis of the unintended conclusion, they found a correlation that should form the basis of developing a hypothesis for testing. Their last sentence, Basically, the data isnt there and there is a need for further study. The 2013 CDC report (Google it) indicates the data isnt there as well and also indicates a need for further study see summary here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/9/17/1238623/-Defensive-Gun-Use-The-CDC-Report-on-Gun-Violence What this summary also indicates is that formulation of a sound methodology for exploring these topics in a better controlled study still have yet to be formulated. So, from the objective they initially declared, They failed to achieve it and even, though unintentionally, showed why they failed. So, conclusions based on correlations of these types of studies are usually based on the political ideology and bias of the reader. Now, one point I will concede, a gun in the home increases risk of death by gun the same way keeping venomous snakes in the home increase the risk of being bitten by one. However, does the risk outweigh the benefit? Those that keep guns in their home believe it does and under the 2nd Amendment, it is their right to assume that risk for the potential benefit.
This is probably true.. however, It is far more likely that none of this will happen. Stats show that these things happen to only a tiny fraction of the over 100 million legal firearm owners.
