Found some good ones. First this:
First I’m sure S&W LOVES them using their promotional images for this crap. Still its quoting the great Arthur “Moving the Goal Posts” Kellermann. Kellermann studies are best defined by his use of made-up metrics in discussing events that involve metrics that have NOTHING to do with his little qualifiers.
His famous study where “A gun in the home is 6,750 times more likely to harm somebody known to you than an intruder” was used to claim you’d shoot your kid thinking you were shooting a prowler. Except it wasn’t. All the “Negative” variable meant that was when the body was ID’d you knew who you shot. That means yes, you shot your kid or your spouse, but those cases are very rare. It DOES ALSO mean you shot your stalker ex boyfriend, they crazy guy who lives up the street from you, OR a rival gang member. Also the “Gun in the home” was not necessarily the gun used. Say a home invader breaks into your house and has a stolen pistol on him. You have an old hunting rifle in the attic, and no ammo for it. If you get shot and killed and your wife or mother ID’s the body, you had a gun in the home, and you were shot. Last Kellermann only counted dead bodies in his study. If you wounded and attacker, or shot and missed, or they simply saw your gun and ran, that was NOT a “successful” defense.
One gets the feeling he identified the metrics AFTER he reviewed the data, and added all his qualifiers and disqualifiers in such a way that he could get more of that sweet-sweet Joyce Foundation grant money.
This image strikes me as one of the same. So if I shoot an attacker and save the lives of my family, and meanwhile in Chicago there is a massive gang-battle between felons using stolen guns held illegally….this means what exactly?
Now this:
OK, so Georgia passes this law:
House Bill 60, or the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014 — which opponents have nicknamed the “guns everywhere bill” — specifies where Georgia residents can carry weapons. Included are provisions that allow residents who have concealed carry permits to take guns into some bars, churches, school zones, government buildings and certain parts of airports.
Some of this bill is kinda unique. There are only a few states that allow carry in primary level school zones. Of course these states there has been no problems, government buildings is another new one to me. Still most government buildings are no different than any other building. Hell if I’m in the White Mountain National Forrest, I can carry my gun there 100% legally, but technically I can’t enter the stinky pit-toilet at a trail head because that’s a “Government Building”. That’s fine, they smell terrible, I’d rather piss on a tree! Your local post office is a “Government Building”, it has no security, and nothing special about it, except it’s staffed by postal workers. This is NOT an issue.
Still guns in “bars”, yeah that’s legal most places (Jesus, I haven’t looked into this in forever! It’s legal EVERYWHERE but Louisiana!) and while I can’t find a graphic on Churches, outside the Southern States that’s legal EVERYWHERE.
So yeah, your Chicken-little routine is pretty laughable!
“For every instance in which a gun in the home is shot in self-defense….”
Who shoots their guns? Why? Did the gun attack you? Shame on that gun!
Personally, I like to fire my guns, and I like to shoot targets. It works better than trying to shoot my guns with my targets. 😉
WTF is the federal f*cking government concerned about carrying in churches? Isn’t this a ‘separation of church and state’ issue? I guess that concept only goes one way, huh?
If I carry a heater to church, are we gonna have another one of those Waco-style federal fun-fests, courtesy of the FBI/BATFE/National Guard?
And they say WE’RE the paranoid ones.
Pingback: Miscellany ……. | Freedom Is Just Another Word...
Our 20 year old Grandson lives with us. Like most typical young ones, he’s in and out at all hours of the day and night. I hear him come in, sometimes with company at 0200 or 0300 and I have yet to even pick up my gun. Let alone take the shot.
Why is Kellerman even still spreading his lies? He’s been debunked more often that the next three “researchers”.
I talked about on the Squirrel report about when Vector was over at our house, and left fairly late. He drove halfway home before he noticed he didn’t have his cellphone. It had fallen out of his pocket onto our couch. He drove back and we had gone to bed. Not having his phone he rang the doorbell. A late-at-night doorbell ring is a “Get the gun” scenario, and I went to the door with my 1911 in my hand. Seeing it was him, I let him in and he retrieved the phone and went on his way.
I’ve had a few situations like this, some were some random solicitors who were out a little later than they should have, and they were told to leave the property NOW. Maybe they weren’t who they claimed to be. I really don’t care, I watched them leave and never felt like taking a shot, and except for Vector who’s a shooting buddy, none knew I was armed.
Yep, crap!
There’s so much to debunk with Kellerman, but one of the things I don’t hear much is how his data sample was for Seattle, Memphis, and Cleveland- all urban counties. It’s the urban areas where we see low gun ownership and high murder, so his data didn’t even include all those rural counties where lots of people own guns and don’t shoot people with them.
That gets picked on too, I actually just read that in a rebuttal at an anti-gun site yesterday.
I don’t touch on that as much as I should, what I DO touch on is that Kellermann’s odd metrics (as are the more recent Branas which also only looks at a small heavy-crime area, in his case Philadelphia) is like all anti-gun studies their goal is to conflate the lawful gun owners with gang members committing crimes.
In all these studies a person like me, who passes background checks several times a year, hold several conceal carry permits, and work an honest job, are conflated with drug dealers and gang enforcers who also carry guns. Of course if you’re a gang member or drug dealer the chances of you committing murder or being the victim of murder is astronomically high, so they NEED that block to make their numbers look right.
Picking high crime areas for their data sets just helps that even more, but frankly the numbers would look WORSE in their favor, but it would still paint a bad picture as inner city violence drastically overshadows all other crime in America.
Another data point they don’t look into is the real one. The gun doing NOTHING. All things go as I hope, ALL of my guns will kill or harm NOTHING (unless you count things like slide-bite) or maybe kill a game animal or two. Even most defensive gun uses don’t actually end up with a shot being fired, or somebody being wounded. I know personally 4 people who have defended their lives with a gun, three no shots were fired, and one person shot AT and intruder and missed, and these are JUST people who I’ve sat across a table from and enjoyed a meal! But the anti-rights study discount all these people, and all of us who have never drawn a gun in anger, and just look at people who have had the misfortune of shooting at another human being, and attempt to paint this as actionable evidence.
The fact that most guns in America will simply sit in closets and sock drawers, or get taken to the range or hunting, is damn good evidence that gun ownership is benign.