Britain’s Failed Weapons-Control Laws Show Why the Second Amendment Matters

USA has 330 million people and 17,250 murders.

the UK has 66 million people and 800 murders.


so yeah, tell us again how their gun laws have failed.

 

Why would you think the USA is comparable to the UK?
Why don't you think the USA is comparable to Mexico, Brazil, or South Africa?

U.S. homicide rates compared to different countries

 

Flaws on the 1993 Kellermann study

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html

http://www.tbuckner.com/KELLERMANN.htm

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/william-c-montgomery/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/

https://www.guns.com/2015/08/24/kellermanns-gun-ownership-studies-after-two-decades/

 

The UK had very low homicides before they imposed strict laws. What did the laws actually do?

 

There is no need to include a disclaimer to clarify what is already clear.

Renting is probably more indicative of low SES than home ownership. Living alone has been confirmed by other studies to be a risk factor for homicide victimization.

"Criminologists have known for decades that income inequality is the best predictor of the local homicide rate, but why this is so has eluded them. There is a simple, compelling answer: most homicides are the dénouements of competitive interactions between men. Relatively speaking, where desired goods are distributed inequitably and competition for those goods is severe, dangerous tactics of competition are appealing and a high homicide rate is just one of many unfortunate consequences."
https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Competition-Economic-Inequality-Homicide/dp/1412863368

"Examined the effects of marital status and social isolation on adult male homicide. Data were derived from the National Longitudinal Mortality Study, which included 195,392 men (aged 15–64 yrs) at the beginning of the study. Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to 2,000 male Ss and their mortality experiences. Marital status and social isolation are associated with significantly higher risks of homicide victimization. Single persons were 1.9 times, and divorced Ss were 1.7 times, more likely to die from homicide than married persons. Socially isolated adults were 1.6 times more likely to become victims."
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-13863-001

 

or did Kellerman and his fellow travelers count as a home "with a gun it" ones where

a) the only gun in the house is the gun used by the killing was brought by the intruder

b) there were guns in the home but the one used for the unlawful shooting was again brought by the shooter?

in one study of approximately 435 homes, about 430 of them were one of the two cases above

 

Wow, three people here have posted the same fabrication.

 

I am not deluded by a faith based hatred of lawful gn ownership. Many of these "guns in the home" studies were designed to bash gun ownership and engaged in dishonesty.

 

The Kellerman study has been debunked in detail several times in various threads in this forum and elsewhere. It gets dredged up from Hades and dusted off every now and again to make a GCA point as if rational people will somehow forget it has been thoroughly debunked. And, who debunks it matters not if the arguement reveal the study’s glaring flaws and Hellerman’s obvious biased agenda. As for your commentary regarding Congress and the CDC... another lie dredged from the debunk files. In fact, as most here know, the CDC conducted a study, 2012-13, funded under the Obama Administration’s budget in hopes of it supporting his antigun agenda but it backfired (pun) intended.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
While I expect you to criticize the source that summarizes the findings, it provides a direct link to the study result so you can read them yourself.
FFS, don’t you keep up? Or, you just hoping for a new crop of posters?

 

Which is intellectual dishonesty since he did not differentiate between the two groups, but rather presented them as one single group.

Arthur Kellermann was employed to build a study to present private firearms ownership in a bad light. That is why the relationship is claimed to exist, when in fact it does not.

Which is not the presented study, and therefore it is irrelevant to the discussion.

None of which means anything, as such factors cannot be used as a legal basis for attempting to restrict legal firearms ownership. The Heller and McDonald rulings have put an end to that matter entirely. No matter what a so-called "study" may find, firearms ownership is a constitutional right, and no amount of statistical analysis can be grounds for restricting the legal exercising of that right.

Meaning more intellectual dishonesty.

And where was such actually proven?

 

The United Kingdom was never violent to begin with. The united states, by comparison, has always been violent from the very start. As a nation, the united states was founded through the genocidal elimination of the original populace.

 

Nonsense. His studies have never been debunked. You people are never able to explain what is wrong with his studies when asked.

 

You clearly don't understand the case control method and how it is used to identify risk factors.

Unsubstantiated nonsense.

His studies can help people make intelligent decisions about whether to own firearms or not.

I think the burden of proof is on you if you're going to make accusations of dishonesty.

 

Medieval Great Britain was very violent by modern standards.

"A study of coroners’ rolls from the 1340s suggests a homicide rate of 120 per 100,000 of the population – compared with around 1 per 100,000 of the population today for England, Wales and Scotland, meaning you were 100 times more likely to be murdered in medieval Oxford than you are in modern Britain."
https://aeon.co/essays/why-has-england-lost-its-medieval-taste-for-violence

 

For most of the 20th Century, England and Wales had a lower homicide rate than they do now before their draconian laws were put in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

 

It's not a fabrication. It's simple fact.

Of course you're going to claim fact is fabrication, as you regularly and incessantly claim fabrication is fact.

 

We also have a proud history of rebellion and revolution. I worry about my American cousins when I see the group thinking amongst the pro-gunners. They've unfortunately lost their way and their understanding of individualism.

 

Some four hundred years before the united states ever existed as either a nation, or a colony. By comparison, the united states is quite young for a nation, and has officially existed as an independent country for only two hundred and forty two years. It has a long way to go to catch up to other nations in terms of age and establishment. As such, the medieval era of the development of Great Britain is not relevant to the discussion, as it is far outside the scope.

 

It has been explained numerous times what is wrong with his so-called "study" and why it is without credibility. Yet such demonstrations are never responded to.

It is indeed understood. It was simply not used in the study by Arthur Kellermann.

And yet it is fact. Such is why his results cannot be replicated by others.

Intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation does not aid anyone. The only ones who would be helped by referencing such so-called "studies" would be those who can recognize intellectual dishonesty for what it is.

 

See post #53.

 

His study was not only thoroughly debunked and show to be deliverately deceptive, but because it was funded by the CDC as an anti gun activism instrument that was seen for what it was, it was the fuel that prompted the Dickey Amendment.
I’d almost think Geobels would be proud of you except I figure he’s see your feeble attempts to promote anti gun propaganda as incompetent, you are too obvious and not very good at it. Nobody is buying.