Texas husband shoots 2 bank robbers that abducted him, his wife, police say

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Trumped up studies? Brilliant. Your methodology of choice, "I think it's true, therefore it is!". You don't actually believe I will spend any time on this do you?

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

I have wasted enough time on this. Remain ignorant, that's fine by me.

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

[spookyturtle 9,466]

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

[ready4ONE 5,400]

We discussed at length at what point it was acceptable to use deadly force instead of just letting someone beat you while you hoped they stopped. There was a thread over the weekend where several users stated that it was pointless to carry a gun since the risk of being involved in an assault was almost non existent. These same people said that most likely anyone who carried a gun or had one in their home was far more likely to have it used against them, so they had to be out of their minds to have a gun for protection.

Statistically, which is not something gun nuts put much stock in, you are more likely to get shot or have a loved one shot with your own gun or the other guys gun just by having one.

Continue your quality rant though.

Glad the OP story turned out the way that it did, but it could have gone very differently.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

C. I have no idea idea how to respond to the overwhelming facts you presented, so I will just call you a nut job or insult you and move on, and claim I already answered the question. ( this covers the tin foil hat stupidity

I hated to whip them back out, I thought I had them trained

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Statistically, which is not something gun nuts put much stock in, you are more likely to get shot or have a loved one shot with your own gun or the other guys gun just by having one.

Continue your quality rant though.

Glad the OP story turned out the way that it did, but it could have gone very differently.

I'll ask you again, please post the statistics showing the number of people shot with their own guns vs the number of crimes deterred by gun owners and then I'll listen. You anti gun nuts talk out of your aѕѕholes so much it's comical.

You are correct about one thing, the story could have turned out very differently if he didn't have a gun. He and his wife could both be dead now.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I'll ask you again, please post the statistics showing the number of people shot with their own guns vs the number of crimes deterred by gun owners and then I'll listen. You anti gun nuts talk out of your aѕѕholes so much it's comical.

You are correct about one thing, the story could have turned out very differently if he didn't have a gun. He and his wife could both be dead now.

I said 'increased chance of getting shot with your own gun or the other guys' and if you are too lazy to look it up I'm too lazy to find it for you.

Your last sentence is a serious leap of faith.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I said 'increased chance of getting shot with your own gun or the other guys' and if you are too lazy to look it up I'm too lazy to find it for you.

Your last sentence is a serious leap of faith.

You odds of getting shot increase if either you or the bad guys have guns Now that's groundbreaking right there...I tell you what.

I bet it took a Ivy League statistician to figure that out

I

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I said 'increased chance of getting shot with your own gun or the other guys' and if you are too lazy to look it up I'm too lazy to find it for you.

Your last sentence is a serious leap of faith.

I can't find it anywhere on the FBI or The Bureau of Justice Statistics sites. Would you be so kind as to post a gov source to back up your claim?

My last sentence is the truth. Without his gun, that man and his wife may have been killed by the armed abductors. His gun deterred the potential violent crime. I know it sucks for some to admit that, so deflection is the usual reply.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

You don't find it from a government source per se, you study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Share This:

402

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, School of Nursing; Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, School of Social Policy; Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, both from the School of Medicine, are co-authors.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Story Source:

The above story is based on

materials

provided by

University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Statistically, which is not something gun nuts put much stock in, you are more likely to get shot or have a loved one shot with your own gun or the other guys gun just by having one.

Continue your quality rant though.

Glad the OP story turned out the way that it did, but it could have gone very differently.

Link

Not true. You are not only using skewed data you are misrepresenting it. The correct comparison is that you are more likely to get KILLED by a gun than to use one to KILL an attacker. So what? Meaningless statistic.The use of firearms to prevent attacks far more often than not do not involve KILLING anyone. The premise that a firearm cannot be useful for reducing crime or protecting yourself unless you KILL someone with it is retarded.

Again, if what you said were true, at least ONE state would have had an increase in shootings.killings, crime after implementing CC. NONE have. At least ONE state would have repealed CC. NONE have. At least ONE state would have further restricted CC licenses. NONE have. Its BULLSH*T Repeating it, distorting it does not make it so.

Believeing it means you are incapable of thinking or of looking at actual real world experience in ALL states over the last 30 years.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You don't find it from a government source per se, you study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds

Sep. 30, 2009 — In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

Share This:

402

The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.

“This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous,” notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. “Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?”

What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting.

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.

“The US has at least one gun for every adult,” notes Branas. “Learning how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the past have not been legally permitted to fund research ‘designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.’”

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are also indebted to numerous dedicated individuals at the Philadelphia Police, Public Health, Fire, and Revenue Departments as well as DataStat Inc, who collaborated on the study.

Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, School of Nursing; Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, School of Social Policy; Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD, both from the School of Medicine, are co-authors.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided byUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

More BS. No allowance for the relevence of crime reduction without shooting someone. Nonsense. It does not even consider any data UNLESS someone is shot. Retarded skewed study. This is why PA does not repeal CC.

The conclusion was...inconclusive.

PA has had decreased crime since it passed CC. That's conclusive.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I said 'increased chance of getting shot with your own gun or the other guys' and if you are too lazy to look it up I'm too lazy to find it for you.

Your last sentence is a serious leap of faith.

You would have been better off not to look up and post that retarded study.

The FBI produces the uniform crime report every year. Why would you not use that? Hmmm. All anyone has to do is look at the number of shootings/homicides for any state before and after the implementation of concealed carry. As more people carry guns then there will be an increase in shootings and killings each year...IF the study you posted is correct.

If the number of shootings and homicides go DOWN every year as more people carry guns...the study is BULLSH*T

Care to guess what has happened? In ALL states. For 30 years.

Google FBI Uniform Crime report. Or don't. I dont care, I'm winning.

[himher 634]

Have faith! I'm sure that if were illegal for someone to have an illegal gun all the illegal gun owners would turn them in so that they didn't get into trouble for breaking the law.

That always works. That's why DC has always had such a low crime rate.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

More BS. No allowance for the relevence of crime reduction without shooting someone. Nonsense. It does not even consider any data UNLESS someone is shot. Retarded skewed study. This is why PA does not repeal CC.

The conclusion was...inconclusive.

PA has had decreased crime since it passed CC. That's conclusive.

Did a bit of bloviating while I was posting a source for my position, didn't you? I've already heard your unsubstantiated belief that CC and more guns, less crime twaddle. Not impressed. A leading to H with nothing but your own opinion being the link.

The conclusion of the cited study is you're four times (4 x!) more likely to be shot in the types of incidents that you feel having a gun increases your safety than not.

Look you can stop being a jacka$$ and actually realize that your desired effect of carrying a gun and the real effect are not the same. Or don't.

I don't want your precious guns.

I liken your position to a mountain climber convinced that his skills will prevent the very real danger of the sport from ever having even the possibility of costing him his life or causing serious injury. I am not against him taking the risk as that is his or her choice.

Edited August 7, 2013 by ready4ONE