This story was buried by the media . . .

[ants]

yes, just making a mockery of the fact he is a 16 y.o. freshman he should be at least a junior, but now we dont even have to worry about this POS

How surprised would you be if the mom really did go the the same school?? LOL!!!

Every time some dirt bag gets arrested or killed, while committing a crime, someone always comes out to say what a good person he/she was, how they were turning their life around, how they were somehow the victim...Blah blah blah..

Edited February 13, 2013 by ants

[josephmrtn]

would not surprised at all....

[mike rossi]

If the kid did or didnt have a weapon doesnt matter IMO. Beating a 70 year old man could easilly result in his death. Im glad the little puke is no longer a problem for the rest of us.

Hopefully he didnt spawn yet either.

[Dr Ignominious Death]

Doc, you can use terms like 'imagined stats' if it makes you feel better. I don't expect to change your mind. Studies like these have been done many times and the conclusions are always the same. Again, I'm sure you'll dismiss the findings. But, this is just one example, if you'd care to read it.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.

Source

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

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.

A little bit more from the paper. It does not mention anything about ownership of the gun, just that the gun was "kept in the residence". The study was in 1998 in a low power journal at the time. Just because something gets published, doesn't qualify the article.

I think including the suicide statistics is also a confounding variable because it is including individuals who purposeful used the weapons to cause injury or death. This data would be better interpreted by comparing the number of gun owners who use their gun to commit suicide vs non-suicidal gun owners. It's biased to include suicides because had they not had a gun, I'd imagine that they would have used some other means to commit suicide.

What's interesting is the authors don't identify the demographics of the gun "owners" and many other factors which contribute to irresponsible use of firearms (h/o of mental illness, gun safes, trigger locks, etc).

Although we went to great lengths to collect complete information on each case, this was not always possible. Some victims were too injured or impaired to recall specific details of their injury event. Others were unwilling to report specific details of their shooting. To maximize detection of cases and minimize the potential for misreporting, we attempted to link each hospital and/or emergency department record with its corresponding police report. This was accomplished in a large majority of cases. [13]

In the three cities we studied, health care personnel are required to report gunshot injuries to the authorities. [18-20] Unfortunately, this reporting did not always occur. In busy emergency departments, a case can be overlooked if personnel assume that someone else has already called the police. Patients who wish to avoid detection may dissuade health care workers from reporting a case by claiming that police documented the facts on the scene. [21]

Counting cases of fatal and nonfatal injury does not measure all of the potential benefits and risks of keeping a gun in the home. A gun can be used to scare away an intruder without a shot being fired. <a class="fulltext-RA" href="http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.ezpminer.urmc.rochester.edu/sp-3.8.0b/ovidweb.cgi?QS2=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#66">[3] Simply keeping a gun in the home may deter some criminals who fear confronting an armed homeowner. [2]

Edited February 13, 2013 by Dr Ignominious Death

[Doc]

Doc, you can use terms like 'imagined stats' if it makes you feel better. I don't expect to change your mind. Studies like these have been done many times and the conclusions are always the same. Again, I'm sure you'll dismiss the findings. But, this is just one example, if you'd care to read it.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.

Source

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

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.

Virgil-

I don't know whether it escaped your notice or not, but 4 of the 5 resources that you linked were simply partnering onto the studies done by this Al Kellermann. So in your attempt to show a huge number of studies done by 5 different researchers, you failed to point out that every one of these so-called studies were done by the same lead researcher. Yes I will say that someone who seems to have specialized in anti-gun studies certainly does raise credibility concerns. This guy apparently makes his living from trying to arrive at a predetermined bias. I will say that his studies may be on the up and up, but I wouldn't base my entire opinion based on one guy who appears to have an axe to grind. Ever hear the phrase, "figures don't lie, but liars figure"? I am not saying that this is the case here, but the anti-gun lobby has deep pockets and certainly can afford the best anti-gun studies that money can buy. So, I am not about to recommend that people dispose of their weapons in their homes based on these studies.

Also, any study that includes suicide and accidents, fails to account for the fact that those intent on committing suicide do not require a gun to do so, and there is no evidence given that the gun in the home was the cause of the suicide or that it wouldn't have happened by other means if the gun was not present. I see the inclusions of suicides just an irrelevant attempt at inflating the body count to match the desired outcome. And if we are going to add in accidents, we also have to admit that accidents by firearms are insignificant in number compared with other forms of accidents. Maybe what the author has successfully proven is that the home can be a dangerous place....lol. I think I could have guessed that without this guy Kellermann sucking up all that research money. Seriously, if the purpose of your linking these supposed stats was to show that people should pitch their home defense weapons, I'm afraid you failed.

[virgil]

Doc, I never said or implied that I was posting a 'huge number' of studies. In fact, I think I actually stated clearly that I was posting one example. You're trying so hard to discredit the study- your 'analysis' is comical. You say that the person who conducted the study arrived at 'predetermined findings' because that allows you to dismiss the study. I'm sure there are countless other studies that have found the same conclusions. And, I'm sure you'll dismiss those as well.

[Doc]

Doc, I never said or implied that I was posting a 'huge number' of studies. In fact, I think I actually stated clearly that I was posting one example. You're trying so hard to discredit the study- your 'analysis' is comical. You say that the person who conducted the study arrived at 'predetermined findings' because that allows you to dismiss the study. I'm sure there are countless other studies that have found the same conclusions. And, I'm sure you'll dismiss those as well.

I'm sure ....lol.

Look I'm not dismissing any study. I only caution you and others about taking these, or any study as gospel. There are people out there that have vested interests in making the results match the pre-determined theory. Also, when it comes to highly emotional, incendiary political topics, there are plenty of people with deep pockets that are interested in influencing or financing studies that are designed to back their particular political needs. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is really quite naive. So when someone trots out a study that supposedly is intended to end all discussion, I simply say, hold on a minute, I can find any article on the internet to uphold my particular viewpoint on any subject. That does not mean that they are all on the up-and-up. This one does have some suspicious research constructions and inclusions.

[virgil]

An article and a study are two different things. And, yes, no kidding, there are interest groups on all sides of many issues who will produce articles and studies to support their own agendas. But, a true study is a scientific process (I know that 'science' is a dirty word for many on the extreme right), and can stand up to scrutiny.

[wmig2]

Justice served!!!! He will never be a threat to society again.

[ants]

Did you guys see that study that concluded that every person who ever ate tomatoes eventually dies? LOL!!

[mike rossi]

I'm sure ....lol.

Look I'm not dismissing any study. I only caution you and others about taking these, or any study as gospel. There are people out there that have vested interests in making the results match the pre-determined theory. Also, when it comes to highly emotional, incendiary political topics, there are plenty of people with deep pockets that are interested in influencing or financing studies that are designed to back their particular political needs. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is really quite naive. So when someone trots out a study that supposedly is intended to end all discussion, I simply say, hold on a minute, I can find any article on the internet to uphold my particular viewpoint on any subject. That does not mean that they are all on the up-and-up. This one does have some suspicious research constructions and inclusions.

Doc,

You describe what is termed "junk science" above. I am not sure if this stat report is even considered a scientific study to begin with. If it is, it would be considered a "meta study" which is nothing like an experimental or field study. Metas often start with preconceptions and cherry pick published studies to reach a preconcieved conclusion. It is not uncommon for these types of studies to be disproven by other studies.

Anyway the results of this study dont really have any "decision implications". Like I alluded to earlier, so what that accidents are more frequent than home invasions? What is the significance of that? There is none, but it promotes a political agenda. Real science is conducted objectively without an agenda.

Even when a legitimate study is used in policy, special interest groups from both sides of any controversial issue, and politicians, not the researchers, miscategorize the data and conclusions to make it fit their political agenda. The same exact thing is done with laws. The second ammendment is constituitional law which is a different breed of cat, and one that the supreme court has ruled on again and again. One example of political interpretation of a law is the Endangered Species Act. One side uses it to further an emotional animal rights agenda and sportsmen insist it is merely a political tool to iincrementally limit hunting opportunity.

[Doc]

I think the thing that bothers me most is that some guys will search the internet until they find some printed matter that seems to support their position. And then they come on here waving their arms in the air proclaiming they have found "proof" that their position is valid. I'm simply pointing out that such a tactic is not necessarily valid nor credible nor is there anything showing that the results are indeed worth the paper they are written on. But yet we are supposed to say, "Well that's it. If you found it on the net it must be true". We all know that if it is found on the net it has to be true .... right? I'm sorry if I don't simply buy everything that is peddled on the net. I'm just a bit more skeptical than that, especially when it comes to politically sensitive topics.

[mike rossi]

The issue of science is more relevant to conservation and the discharge of hunting policy than to second ammendment debates, a good example is that as someone stated, is really an article, not a study, and I dont think science can be applied to the relationship between guns and homicides and gun accidents.

It is not relevant to this thread to discuss what science is and how it is incorporated into conservation mangement decisions and/or environmental conservation laws, particularily en-con laws regulating hunting, fishing, and trapping. I think this is an area of confusion and deserves a thread.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

RE: Buried by the media.

Did anyone hear about the School Board in Ohio that voted unanimously to arm the janitors?

[josephmrtn]

Good idea

[Doc]

I would actually like to see school security become a trained career. I'm talking about an actual schooling with intense firearms handling, martial arts and examples of scenarios and recommended reactions, and rules of policy. I do not mean a couple weeks of seminars. It would be good to actually develop a curriculum with testing and certification when completed. Upon completion there would be an intense background check, and an offer of jobs that actually allowed these graduates to earn a decent income. Such a trained professional security could be useful in schools and any other place that needed quality trained people in that field.

[mike rossi]

Doc, I never said or implied that I was posting a 'huge number' of studies. In fact, I think I actually stated clearly that I was posting one example. You're trying so hard to discredit the study- your 'analysis' is comical. You say that the person who conducted the study arrived at 'predetermined findings' because that allows you to dismiss the study. I'm sure there are countless other studies that have found the same conclusions. And, I'm sure you'll dismiss those as well.

I agree that sportsmen too often attack studies with the same line of offense you describe. However, think about how a study comes to be: A scientist has an idea he wants to test or is funded to solve a problem or gather info. Now, with that in mind, think about what idea drove this study. Humm, imagine a scientist waking up one day and saying to himself, "gee I wonder how the incidence of home invasions stopped by firearms compares to accidental shootings in the home". How can anyone deny that this particular study is one of those kinds of studies that are engineered to reinforce a political agenda?

[Doc]

I agree that sportsmen too often attack studies with the same line of offense you describe. However, think about how a study comes to be: A scientist has an idea he wants to test or is funded to solve a problem or gather info. Now, with that in mind, think about what idea drove this study. Humm, imagine a scientist waking up one day and saying to himself, "gee I wonder how the incidence of home invasions stopped by firearms compares to accidental shootings in the home". How can anyone deny that this particular study is one of those kinds of studies that are engineered to reinforce a political agenda?

I will say that any study that has political under-pinnings had better be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb (several times). Seriously, one of the most powerful tools in a politians bag of tricks is a well crafted study that your average citizen can neither understand or refute. There is money to be made by researchers that fill that need. And isn't it convenient to have an opinion supposedly converted to political fact. The only way to counteract a well funded and carefully crafted study is by launching your own .... lol. It is designed to keep you on the defensive and have it appear that you have been beaten by science. It's ingenious, and works everytime because as soon as the word "study" has been used, the argument is over and everybody accepts the result as gospel .... right? Well, almost everybody.

[HighlandLofts]

I know a lot of people who have conceal carry permits here in Washington State, several of them used their handgun to stop aggression towards them & their family, robbery, home invasion, road rage and a few other situations. I have used my handguns twice in twelve years,you never know when things are going to go wrong. When I get dressed in the morning I slip a handun on and it stays on my person until I go to bed at night and then it is on my night stand next to my side of the bed.

In over 43 years of gun use and ownership I do not personally know one person who was accidently shot by a gun. Accidents do happen with guns, but there are hundreds of thousands of accidents by other means every day, 365 days a year.

When some one threatens you, you have a split second to react to the situation. A spilt second determines wheather you live or die. I don't know what the statistic is for how many people die from personal defence and how many are shot and injured, but I do know there is a very high percent that only get drawn on and it stops there. Probably most of them should of shot the scum, but they didn't.

And as far as someone getting my gun from me and useing it on me, I'll take my chances. I refuse to be an unarmed victim. When shit happens and you call the cops the damage is DONE, It's after the fact.

If I didn't have my 357 my ass would of been in deep trouble two times, Third time I might be out.

[Doc]

Good point. I wonder if any of these studies even consider the times when a personal defense weapon turns back intruders or others bent on assault, where no shot is even fired by either party or no one is injured. Oh, and by the way, the more mean the weapon looks (nasty looking ol' "assault rifles"), the more likey that that will be the result.

[mike rossi]

I will say that any study that has political under-pinnings had better be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb (several times). Seriously, one of the most powerful tools in a politians bag of tricks is a well crafted study that your average citizen can neither understand or refute. There is money to be made by researchers that fill that need. And isn't it convenient to have an opinion supposedly converted to political fact. The only way to counteract a well funded and carefully crafted study is by launching your own .... lol. It is designed to keep you on the defensive and have it appear that you have been beaten by science. It's ingenious, and works everytime because as soon as the word "study" has been used, the argument is over and everybody accepts the result as gospel .... right? Well, almost everybody.

Doc, wouldnt this make a good topic in itself?

[virgil]

Great idea. Why not start a thread to discuss how all of science is just a bunch of elitist bunk invented by liberal academics with the express purpose of falsely proving their utopian ideals and tricking conservative American patriots.

[mike rossi]

Great idea. Why not start a thread to discuss how all of science is just a bunch of elitist bunk invented by liberal academics with the express purpose of falsely proving their utopian ideals and tricking conservative American patriots.

Virgil,

Are you saying that a forum dicussion on this would increase anti-science attitudes? Everybody and their labrador retriever has already heard the anti-science rhetoric, so there is nothing to loose by presenting the other side of the coin...

[virgil]

It's so funny to me that there actually is such a thing as 'anti-science attitudes'. I don't know what you mean about the labrador and the anti-science rhetoric. What other side of the coin are you referring to? Are you saying the 'science' requires some sort of a defense?

[Elmo]

Who was it that said "the funny thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not"?