Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

At least 18 children and 9 others dead in Connecticut school shooting. Does this change your mind ab Options · View
99zx7r
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:42:25 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/3/2012
Posts: 16
Just keep living in your world. I'll live in the real one where I can carry my weapon and feel safe. If I can't pull my gun in time, somebody else will be able to get to it.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:55:51 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,207
Location: Cakeland
99zx7r wrote:
Just keep living in your world. I'll live in the real one where I can carry my weapon and feel safe. If I can't pull my gun in time, somebody else will be able to get to it.


Because -

There's a soldier in all of us.



'bout time for me to log off Lush and get into a real firefight with some peeps around the world with BB3.
I'm a sniping machine

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
99zx7r
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:30:37 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/3/2012
Posts: 16
Yes sir, enjoy the game. I'll be out here defending your right to do such things. I've mentioned before that I grew up not far from the location of the tragedy, I'm pro gun and I'm active duty for 21 years now. You're welcome
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:46:37 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
Eite you may not need it in Norway and I dont think I need one to defend against the government that is ludacris But this country has reverted to shoot first anask questions later by the WRONG type of people and it has been and should always be the right for pvt citizen to own a gun . If anyone doesnt believe that the media and other things such as video games doesnt have an effect on anyone they never worked Psychiatric. No I dont believe that it has any neg effect on a NORMAL person but on someone who may be a little unbalanced I hve seen the negative results yet no care is provided to those people before anything negative happens. I didnt believe it either till i worked in the field. And those who wnat o commit a crime or God forbid suicide will find a way to accomplish it no matter how bad it may be.
echopomp
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:06:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190
wow some people on here are scary.

yes 'bad' people can get guns if they really want. But if you control the number of guns, and make it difficult for normal people to get them then the number of people going postal with guns will drop.

it is a simple equation more guns = more death.

to say it is not guns that kill it is people is a big pile of crap. anyone who honestly believes that gun control is a bad thing, is clearly not someone who should be trusted with a gun.

99zx7r
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:17:55 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/3/2012
Posts: 16
Wow. Don't even know what to say to that. Yes I do, That's dumb. Bad people can get guns when they want and we shouldn't be able to defend ourselves? That's dumb. They're going to get the guns one way or another. By the way, they were not his guns. That's dumb
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:18:57 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
Angie57 wrote:
Eite you may not need it in Norway and I dont think I need one to defend against the government that is ludacris




spread da word!
echopomp
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:45:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/16/2011
Posts: 190
you seem to think that gun control is a bad thing. if there are lots of guns then more people have access to them. it is simple!

Honestly anyone who believes that controlling lethal weapons is dumb, needs to reassess their life.

Guns are lethal weapons, they are called lethal cos they kill people!

hundreds of people die each year in gun related accidents. Guns kill it is simple! it is not dumb to control something that kills hundreds of people!

if you can't see this then you really really should not have control of a gun! who decides who is the bad person? you? if so you become judge jury and executionor!

2 wrongs do not make a right!

wake up, guns kill. more guns kill more people!
Constantine302
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:30:52 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 8/18/2010
Posts: 34
Location: Adelaide
Reading through many post placed on here, I have a couple of things to say. Firstly I sorry for the families and friends who at this time of year (christmas) have to go through the pain of love ones lost. My heart and prayers go out to all.

Secondly, the American people need to take control NOW, Don't let the goverment make the law, you make the law and tell the goverment what you want. Take back control of your society and say no more of this will happen. It is every ones responsibility to make it a safe society not the governments.

Thirdly, I've been playing video games most of my life and not once have I wanted to go out afterwards and hurt some one. Saying that media and video games are partly to blame is a load of BS. It's just putting the blame back on some else rather than taking responsibility of what happens in society. Once again take control of you Society and make positive changes to it.

The changes are in your hands now, it's up to you how you go about it.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:50:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530

Our Moloch

Garry Wills


Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch. Ever since then, worship of Moloch has been the sign of a deeply degraded culture. Ancient Romans justified the destruction of Carthage by noting that children were sacrificed to Moloch there. Milton represented Moloch as the first pagan god who joined Satan’s war on humankind:

First Moloch, horrid king, besmear’d with blood
Of human sacrifice, and parents’ tears,
Though for the noise of Drums and Timbrels loud
Their children’s cries unheard, that pass’d through fire
To his grim idol. (Paradise Lost 1.392-96)

Read again those lines, with recent images seared into our brains—“besmeared with blood” and “parents’ tears.” They give the real meaning of what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School Friday morning. That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily—sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometime this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).
The gun is not a mere tool, a bit of technology, a political issue, a point of debate. It is an object of reverence. Devotion to it precludes interruption with the sacrifices it entails. Like most gods, it does what it will, and cannot be questioned. Its acolytes think it is capable only of good things. It guarantees life and safety and freedom. It even guarantees law. Law grows from it. Then how can law question it?

Its power to do good is matched by its incapacity to do anything wrong. It cannot kill. Thwarting the god is what kills. If it seems to kill, that is only because the god’s bottomless appetite for death has not been adequately fed. The answer to problems caused by guns is more guns, millions of guns, guns everywhere, carried openly, carried secretly, in bars, in churches, in offices, in government buildings. Only the lack of guns can be a curse, not their beneficent omnipresence.

Adoration of Moloch permeates the country, imposing a hushed silence as he works his will. One cannot question his rites, even as the blood is gushing through the idol’s teeth. The White House spokesman invokes the silence of traditional in religious ceremony. “It is not the time” to question Moloch. No time is the right for showing disrespect for Moloch.

The fact that the gun is a reverenced god can be seen in its manifold and apparently resistless powers. How do we worship it? Let us count the ways:

1. It has the power to destroy the reasoning process. It forbids making logical connections. We are required to deny that there is any connection between the fact that we have the greatest number of guns in private hands and the greatest number of deaths from them. Denial on this scale always comes from or is protected by religious fundamentalism. Thus do we deny global warming, or evolution, or biblical errancy. Reason is helpless before such abject faith.
2. It has the power to turn all our politicians as a class into invertebrate and mute attendants at the shrine. None dare suggest that Moloch can in any way be reined in without being denounced by the pope of this religion, National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, as trying to destroy Moloch, to take away all guns. They whimper and say they never entertained such heresy. Many flourish their guns while campaigning, or boast that they have themselves hunted “vermin.” Better that the children die or their lives be blasted than that a politician should risk an election against the dread sentence of NRA excommunication.
3. It has the power to distort our constitutional thinking. It says that the right to “bear arms,” a military term, gives anyone, anywhere in our country, the power to mow down civilians with military weapons. Even the Supreme Court has been cowed, reversing its own long history of recognizing that the Second Amendment applied to militias. Now the court feels bound to guarantee that any every madman can indulge his “religion” of slaughter. Moloch brooks no dissent, even from the highest court in the land.
Though LaPierre is the pope of this religion, its most successful Peter the Hermit, preaching the crusade for Moloch, was Charlton Heston, a symbol of the Americanism of loving guns. I have often thought that we should raise a statue of Heston at each of the many sites of multiple murders around our land. We would soon have armies of statues, whole droves of Heston acolytes standing sentry at the shrines of Moloch dotting the landscape. Molochism is the one religion that can never be separated from the state. The state itself bows down to Moloch, and protects the sacrifices made to him. So let us celebrate the falling bodies and rising statues as a demonstration of our fealty, our bondage, to the great god Gun.

December 15, 2012, 5:25 p.m.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:54:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 6:55:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
1996, in the small town of Dunblane, Scotland a man called Thomas Harrison walked into the primary school and slaughtered 16 children aged about 5/6yrs old and their teacher before turning the gun on himself. The reaction from residents and the people of the UK was a campaign to tighten the already strict gun laws. In 1997 it was made illegal for a private citizen to own or attempt to buy a firearm.

This was in stark contrast to the majority of contributors to this forum, whose solution seems to be more guns, even arm the teachers says one person. It is a shame that when the first school shooting happened in America people took the same action as we did in Scotland. If they had a lot of innocent children would be alive today.

I am proud of the way my country reacted to an appalling massacre and loss of life. The eyes of the civilised world will be on America in the weeks to come but I am afraid that the people who can only recite the mantra "guns don't kill people, people do" as if it is repeated often enough it will somehow become true. They will win again and more innocent people will be killed.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 7:00:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530

I remember when contraceptives were first introduced in schools.
The indignant argument against it was that it sent a message that casual sex was condoned.

By that argument, what message does it send that guns are legal and easily obtained?
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 7:42:52 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,207
Location: Cakeland
Oberon wrote:
By that argument, what message does it send that guns are legal and easily obtained?


I'd like to know if the murdered mother of the shooter, was a member in good standing with the NRA. She purchased and owned those weapons legally.

The Remington 'Bushmaster' .223 weapon used primarily by Mr. Lanza. Looks great for deer hunting or zombie protection come December 22nd. This is but one model of the Bushmaster Series.


My apologies for the gun-porn, not trying to upset anyone...but this is the primary weapon utilized as per the Chief Medical Officer of the state of CT.

(from the link)

Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle at close range
to kill children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on Friday.

"I believe everybody was hit more than once," said Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the state of Connecticut's Chief Medical Examiner.

He said the bullets were uniquely damaging and that Lanza's victims died almost immediately.

"The bullets are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in," Carver said. He described the wounds as a "very devastating set of injuries."

Two handguns were also found at the scene, but Carver described the Bushmaster as the killer's primary weapon. A fourth weapon was found nearby.

The weapons that police recovered from the scene included a Glock 9-mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9-mm handgun and a Bushmaster rifle. Police also found .223 shell casings. Lanza was wearing a bullet-proof vest.

The shooter's mother, 52-year-old Nancy Lanza, had five weapons registered to her, including a Glock, a Sig Sauer, and a Bushmaster rifle.

You can obtain these legally from Bud's Gun Shop (or any other assault weapon you want).

Maybe this will silence all of you who have stated that the shooter primarily used handguns, as if that would be more acceptable anyway. shaking

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:41:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
I think assault weapons should be banned, there really is no real purpose for them other than to kill mass amounts of people, although, even if they were to be banned, people would get them illegally as well. There is no logical way to prevent people from getting weapons. I do think that the media has both a positive and negative impact on the opinions of many people. Video games and movies affect people differently. As a gamer, I find stress relief when I play violent games. In the games I go on killing sprees and rampages and I always feel better afterwards. I play when I get the chance, it keeps me from taking it out on real people. I don't like hurting people, whether it's physical pain or emotional pain. It's just not how I am.
Banning assault weapons would be great, but it would just bring up sales in black markets and people obsessed with wanting to hurt people will find any way to get a hole of weapons. Psychology does play a big part in it, whether you want to believe it or not. Some people who seem completely normal are the ones you have to watch out for, they could have years of bottled up stress and one day just snap. Most people with mental problems don't want to hurt people. Being someone who has mental problems, I've talked to tons of people who have the same problems as I do, and all we want is someone who will talk to us and let us know that we're loved and cared about. Mental problems may have a part in whether people go "postal" but there are a lot of very successful people who have mental problems.
But there are a lot of people who have snapped and killed people because they don't know what's going on with them and they've never been diagnosed with mental problems, because they don't show the "typical signs" of having any mental disorders.
While we should bad assault weapons, we should just ban every kind of rifle/firearm altogether. If we banned all weapons, there would be no way for people to protect themselves. Anything can be used as a weapon.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 8:45:37 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,207
Location: Cakeland
Garza wrote:
abc and the others need to get their stories straight. They have very different accounts

Fox: The vehicle the suspect drove to the school was registered to his mother. At least three guns were found -- a Glock and a Sig Sauer, both pistols, inside the school, and a .223-caliber rifle in the back of a car, authorities said.

CNN: The bloodshed ended when Lanza's own life did. He was found dead in a classroom with two firearms, a Glock and Sig Sauer. Another gun, a .223 Bushmaster, was found nearby in a car.

Unless he had two identical rifles I don't see how you use a rifle that's in a car, maybe
police can explain the logistical nightmare.



I'm relying on the statements from the states chief medical examiner, named & quoted in the ABC story, Garza. I haven't read the CNN or FOX reports yet.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
tazznjazz
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:12:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
davie wrote:
1996, in the small town of Dunblane, Scotland a man called Thomas Harrison walked into the primary school and slaughtered 16 children aged about 5/6yrs old and their teacher before turning the gun on himself. The reaction from residents and the people of the UK was a campaign to tighten the already strict gun laws. In 1997 it was made illegal for a private citizen to own or attempt to buy a firearm.

This was in stark contrast to the majority of contributors to this forum, whose solution seems to be more guns, even arm the teachers says one person. It is a shame that when the first school shooting happened in America people took the same action as we did in Scotland. If they had a lot of innocent children would be alive today.

I am proud of the way my country reacted to an appalling massacre and loss of life. The eyes of the civilised world will be on America in the weeks to come but I am afraid that the people who can only recite the mantra "guns don't kill people, people do" as if it is repeated often enough it will somehow become true. They will win again and more innocent people will be killed.

Thank you for your post, we can only pray that the U.S. reacts as humanely as Scotland did to such a horrific tragedy and pray for the poor children that lost their young lives in this terrible way.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:28:56 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
I did never understood people who have a gun or pistole at home. These are dangerous weapons, in our times there is no need for this at home. We have enough police and military to secure our peace and order, why should i carry a weapon with me? One more time the easy access to weapons killed many inocend people. I am very sorry of that...
doctorlove
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 1:45:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/11/2012
Posts: 1,201
We need police in schools just like the banks. Money is insured and can be replaced children can't
dan59
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 2:30:27 AM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 4/14/2011
Posts: 7
Location: United States
Its not the weapons that need to be regulated ,it is the people that misuse them. If someone wants to harm another they will find a way to do it . A stick ,a club ,a spear,a pipe bomb,a car ,maybe even beat them with a dead cat,who knows ? Until we the people can control the other people that have harm on their mind we will not be able to stop the attacks on innocent people.
There are no easy answers but I still hold with the fact that a gun will not shoot multipal people with out there being a person behind it .
Guest
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:26:18 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
So, you'd vote FOR Iran having nuclear weapons, right?
'Cause, you know: "Nuclear weapons don't kill people..."
and: "If nuclear weapons are criminalized..."
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, civilization for a civilization...

'O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is!
O brave new world, That has such people in't'

-Or, you know...used to.



dan59 wrote:
Its not the weapons that need to be regulated ,it is the people that misuse them. If someone wants to harm another they will find a way to do it . A stick ,a club ,a spear,a pipe bomb,a car ,maybe even beat them with a dead cat,who knows ? Until we the people can control the other people that have harm on their mind we will not be able to stop the attacks on innocent people.
There are no easy answers but I still hold with the fact that a gun will not shoot multipal people with out there being a person behind it .
eiffel2007
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:50:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 62
Location: United Kingdom
I do not understand the fetishisation of guns in American culture. They may make you think you are in control and that you can defend yourself but the stats show that you are more likely to be a victim of gun crime than in comparable first world countries.

Yes American society has to take a long hard look at how kids get so divorced from society that they commit such acts, but America it's time to grow up. The 'guns don't kill people' argument is so flawed, that it is the petulant protestation of a child who doesn't want their toys taken from them. Bombs don't kill people, or poison gas and yet I suspect you have no problem with the state regulation of those weapons. It's just that you like guns. And don't cite the right to bear arms shtick. Firstly it's an argument based on a misinterpretation of the text and an ignorance of the context. But secondly and more importantly don't hide behind the words of long dead men. Your country has evolved, change your constitution to reflect now, not the 18th century. Grow up as a nation and stop hiding under mother's apron.

Crazy people will always be crazy. But guns give them the ability to kill on a large scale. Would Lanza have gone on rampage in the school if all he'd had was an array of knives? Maybe. Would 20 little children be dead now? No.

Put your guns away. You don't need them. Stop writing off each mass shooting as the work of an unhinged person, weeping over the innocent dead but doing nothing to prevent a repeat. Take responsibility as a society and say that until you can work out how to stop people being unhinged you can at least deny them the means of causing such carnage.

freakycactus
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:54:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/12/2010
Posts: 417
Location: On my cloud, United Kingdom
dan59 wrote:
Its not the weapons that need to be regulated ,it is the people that misuse them. If someone wants to harm another they will find a way to do it . A stick ,a club ,a spear,a pipe bomb,a car ,maybe even beat them with a dead cat,who knows ? Until we the people can control the other people that have harm on their mind we will not be able to stop the attacks on innocent people.
There are no easy answers but I still hold with the fact that a gun will not shoot multipal people with out there being a person behind it .


I've taken this from the Americans Against the Tea Party Facebook page.

Guest
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:19:20 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,530
not one bit .....
seanabumble
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:25:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 8/12/2012
Posts: 50
Location: United Kingdom
A few kids are a price worth paying so you can pose in front of the mirror with a lethal weapon apparently.
Jack_42
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:41:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 1,324
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
99zx7r wrote:
Bottom line from my world is, gun control will never work. If people want a gun, they'll find it. Just like movies on the internet. In fact I believe it'll be worse. There will be more automatic weapons and untraceable weapons also. I have absolutely no problem with the government knowing what serial numbers I have. I'm not going to shoot another person unless they threaten my family. That's about all I have to say about that.



Going by your theory places with a more restricted gun control should have more killings which is not the case. I also don't believe you should be able to shoot anyone even if they threaten your family there are other alternatives. My family has been threatened but I didn't go and illegally purchase a gun or even buy a bow and arrow in a sports shop which would have been legal. Not meaning to be xenophobic but this is a very US question which a lot of the world might find sort of backward and old fashioned thinking really. I remember a fairly recent incident when some crazed person was shooting people in New York and the police killed him but in the process several bystanders were shot by the police too. This indicates to me that gun use should be very restricted as familiarity breeds contempt and the UK police not being usually armed with guns still seems a good idea to me as when they do use them it is with extreme caution and I have no recollection at all of them ever shooting someone by mistake (though to be honest it may have happened but so rarely I can't recall it).
ByronLord
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 5:50:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 855
Location: Massachusetts, United States
tazznjazz wrote:

Thank you for your post, we can only pray that the U.S. reacts as humanely as Scotland did to such a horrific tragedy and pray for the poor children that lost their young lives in this terrible way.


We had a big argument on USENET in the wake of Dunblane. The response of the UK government was to essentially ban all private guns other than shotguns.

A bunch of gun nuts from talk.politics.guns came over to soc.culture.british to berate us for 'NO RIGHTS IN THE UK"

Their talking point then was that they had decided that there was no such thing as an assault rifle so anyone talking about assault rifles must be 'ignorant'. Complete crap of course. The military know what an assault rifle is, they defined the term in the first place. The point of disputing the definition there is merely to shut down talk that might pop the bubble of their sick gun fetishism.

That is when I had the argument with Timothy McVeigh. He was not the looniest of them by a long way. But he went on to murder almost 200 people a few months later.

So every time I talk to a gun nut I think of Timothy McVeigh and his sick gun twisted fantasies.

Ban all the guns, do it now.

Mazza
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:10:13 AM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 3,360
Nice points well made as usual, ByronLord...

I've seen a few interesting pics around these last few days...





Just thought I'd share them...

Nothing to see here...
tazznjazz
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 6:50:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.

Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.



Summary

Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.



Argument

Most people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?

In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.

Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).

After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.

Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have fiercely attacked this survey. Kellermann's work has been branded "junk science," "unpublishable," "biased," "seriously flawed," "fraudulent" and "grand malpractice." The NRA also criticized the Centers for Disease Control for continuing to fund such anti-gun research, and the Republican Congress pressured the CDC to shut it down completely. Thus, the reaction of Republicans and the NRA to this controversial study was not to call for more studies to clarify the issue, but to censor all further scientific research.

Pro-gun advocates respond that they are not promoting censorship, only objecting to wasting tax dollars on blatantly biased, deeply flawed research. Pro-gunners feel that the sound bites generated by this study will become part of a popular mythology against guns that will be hard to correct. But this objection is based on a faulty view of the research method. The best way to correct bad science is to subject it to expert criticism: namely, peer review. Kellermann's study was, and it passed. Pro-gunners might then wish to criticize the peer review process. For example, they might accuse Kellermann's peer reviewers of sharing his bias (although there are protocols in peer review to avoid this). The principled response, then, would be to examine and reform the peer review process. For example, Republicans in Congress might have called for pro-gun criminologists like Gary Kleck to be included in all future peer review of CDC-funded studies. Another principled response would be for the NRA -- one of the richest organizations in America -- to start funding its own research by way of rebuttal. But to shut down all further research is both censorship and anti-science.

It is apparent from the attacks on Kellermann's study that most of his critics have not even read it. Simply reading the original article in The New England Journal of Medicine (October 7, 1993) would answer 95 percent of their objections. The study was well-designed and is entirely valid. Like any scientific study, it has its limitations. It does not prove that guns cause a higher murder rate in the home, only that the two are associated for some reason. And there are more variables that need to be explored. But the Kellermann study is a legitimate addition to the small but growing scientific literature on the benefits and costs of domestic firearms.

The rest of this essay will be divided into two parts: a detailed description of the Kellermann survey, and a rebuttal of its criticisms.

The survey

Kellermann chose to conduct this survey using the "case-control method" (or CCM). This method examines the differences between two groups: one that possesses a certain trait, and another that does not. For instance, a researcher may compare a "case group" that has lung cancer to a "control group" that is free of the disease. After asking them questions about their behavior and environment, he may learn that the case group generally smokes, but the control group does not. Conclusion: smoking is correlated to lung cancer. In this instance, the arrow of causality is easy to determine, because it is unlikely that lung cancer causes people to start smoking. But sometimes the arrow of causality is more difficult to determine, as in the case of gun ownership and murder.

Kellermann's team identified 388 victims ("case subjects") who were killed in private homes. Surviving members of the household ("proxies") formed the case group which answered the survey. The researchers also gave an identical survey to a control group of 388 other people, who were matched to the victims by age, race, sex and neighborhood.

The homicides which were studied came from three metropolitan areas. The first two were Shelby County, Tennessee (which includes Memphis), and King County, Washington (which includes Seattle), both from August 1987 to August 1992. The third was Cuyahoga County, Ohio (which includes Cleveland), from January 1990 to August 1992. King County is predominately white and enjoys a relatively high standard of living. Cuyahoga County is 25 percent African-American, as is 44 percent of Shelby County. The poverty levels of these counties were 5, 11 and 15 percent, respectively. (The national poverty rate in 1992 was 15 percent.)

The team originally identified 444 cases of homicide in the home, about a fourth of the total number of homicides for those counties. This number was reduced to 420 for the study for various reasons, then to 405 because a control couldn't be found, and then to 388 because a proxy couldn't be interviewed. The high response rate of case proxies (92.6 percent) and matching controls (80.6 percent) is typically considered to have minimized nonresponse bias.

The survey asked 31 questions about the subjects' environment and behavior. The results are listed below. The first two columns reflect the percentage of those who answered yes to the question. The third column reflects the crude odds that a murder would be more likely for those who answered yes. For example, for the first question, murder was 2.4 times more likely in a household where any member drank alcohol. An odds ratio of 1.0 represents no extra risk. Keep in mind that the crude odds are confounded by other variables, and by themselves do not tell the whole story. Another analytical step is needed to arrive closer to the truth.

Case Control Crude odds
Behavioral factors Subjects Subjects Ratio

Any household member drank 73.3% 55.9% 2.4
alcoholic beverages
Case subject or control drank 62.8 41.9 2.6
alcoholic beverages
Drinking caused problems 24.8 5.7 7.0
in the household
Any household member had 9.0 0.8 10.7
trouble at work because
of drinking
Case subject or control had 5.5 0.3 20.0
at work because of
drinking
Any household member 11.4 2.3 9.8
hospitalized because of
drinking
Case subject or control 7.6 0.5 14.0
hospitalized because of
drinking
Any household member used 31.3 6.0 9.0
illicit drugs
Case subject or control 20.3 4.2 6.8
used illicit drugs
Any physical fights in the 25.3 3.4 8.9
home during drinking
Any household member hit or 31.8 5.7 7.9
hurt in a fight in the
home
Any family member required 17.3 2.1 10.2
medical attention because
of a fight in the home
Any adult household member 29.9 18.8 2.1
involved in a physical
fight outside the home
Any household member arrested 52.7 23.4 4.2
Case subject or control 36.0 15.7 3.5
arrested

Environmental Factors
Home Rented 70.4 47.6 5.9
Public Housing 11.1 9.8 1.5
Case subject or control 26.8 11.9 3.4
lived alone
Deadbolt locks 68.8 75.3 0.8
Window bars 19.2 20.9 0.8
Metal Security Door 25.4 26.8 0.9
Burglar alarm 7.1 11.1 0.6
Controlled security access 13.9 9.8 2.3
to residence
Dog or dogs in home 24.2 22.4 1.1
Gun or guns in home 45.4 35.8 1.6
Handgun 35.7 23.3 1.9
Shotgun 13.6 16.8 0.7
Rifle 12.2 13.9 0.8
Any gun kept unlocked 29.6 17.8 2.1
Any gun kept loaded 26.7 12.5 2.7
Guns kept primarily for 32.6 22.2 1.7
self-defense
The above chart is an example of "univariate analysis," or a straight comparison between the two groups. But this analysis is incomplete. There are many variables that simultaneously contribute to the odds of a person being murdered: drug use, domestic violence, criminal history, level of protection, etc. A person who answers yes to the question "Does anyone in the house use illicit drugs?" might be nine times more likely to be murdered, but that doesn't eliminate all the other variables that also contribute to the total murder risk. To isolate the risk attributed to drug use alone, researchers need to perform "multivariate analysis," which zeroes out all these other factors. That way, we can learn how drug use in and of itself raises the murder risk.

Kellermann's team found only six variables that were strong enough to be included in the final model. They found that the following variables were associated with the following increased murder risks:

Murder risk,
Variable Odds adjusted ratio

Illicit drug use 5.7 times
Being a renter 4.4
Household member hit or
hurt in a fight in the home 4.4
Living alone 3.7
Guns in the house 2.7
Household member arrested 2.5
If there were a protective benefit to having a gun in the home, this survey would have found it. After all, if the survey could detect an increased murder risk from the presence of a gun in the home, there's no reason it couldn't from the absence of one as well. But the team found no protective benefits of a gun in the home whatsoever, for any of the subgroups studied.

Of all the methods of murder, guns were responsible for 49.8 percent of the victims killed at home. In homes that kept a gun, the overall murder risk was 2.7 times greater, but for gun homicides it was 4.8, while for non-gun homicides it was 1.2. Notice that 1.2 is not significantly different from 1, so there was no increased risk for non-gun homicides. In other words, people who kept a gun in the home were at higher risk for gun homicides only, not any other type of homicide. This is an important point, because it strongly suggests that gun availability tends to turn ordinary family arguments into something fatal, rather than the murder victims knew they were at risk and armed themselves with a gun.

Alcohol was not included in the multivariate analysis, despite its strong association in the univariate analysis, because alcohol was also related to all the other variables in the final model. Including alcohol in the final model did not substantially alter the results. Furthermore, the odds-adjusted ratio of alcohol was not significantly greater than 1.

The researchers also conducted a stratified analysis of their final model, which found that the link between guns and homicide existed in all 14 subgroups studied. This included women as well as men, whites as well as blacks, and the old as well as the young. Most tellingly, they found the strongest association between guns and homicide among family members and intimate acquaintances (7.8 times more likely). Guns were much less associated to homicides by acquaintances, unidentified intruders, or strangers (1.8 times). Again, this supports the interpretation that guns allow family fights to turn deadly. Here is a complete list of the murder risk by subgroup:

Murder risk,
Subgroup Adjusted odds ratio

Sex
Female 3.6 times
Male 2.3
Race
White 2.7
Black 2.9
Age
15-40 3.4
Over 40 2.3
Suspect related to or
intimate with victim:
Yes 7.8
No 1.8
Evidence of forced entry
Yes 2.5
No 2.8
Victim resisted assailant
Yes 3.0
No 3.1
Method of homicide
Firearm 4.8
Other 1.2
Also revealing are the circumstances surrounding the 420 homicides:

Characteristic Percent of victims

Scene
Inside residence 88.8%
Within immediate property 11.2
Sex of victim
Female 36.9
Male 63.1
Race or ethnic group of victim
White 33.3
Black 61.9
Native American, Eskimo, Aleut 1.0
Asian or Pacific Islander 1.7
Other 2.1
Age of victim (years)
15-24 13.8
25-40 40.7
41-60 25.2
Over 61 20.2
Circumstances
Altercation or quarrel 44.0
Romantic triangle 6.9
Murder-suicide 4.5
Felony-related 21.9
Drug-dealing 7.6
Homicide only 13.3
Other 1.7
Relationship of offender to victim

Spouse 16.7
Intimate acquaintance 13.8
First-degree relative 9.5
Other relative 2.9
Roommate 2.9
Friend or acquaintance 31.0
Police officer 1.0
Stranger 3.6
Unknown (unidentified suspect) 17.4
Other 1.4
Method of homicide
Handgun 42.9
Rifle 2.4
Shotgun 3.6
Unknown firearm 1.0
Knife or sharp instrument 26.4
Blunt instrument 11.7
Strangulation or suffocation 6.4
Burns, smoke, scalding 2.4
Other 3.3
Victim resisted assailant
Yes 43.8
No 33.3
Not noted 22.9
Evidence of forced entry
Yes 14.0
No 84.3
Not noted 1.7
Legally excusable homicide
Yes 3.6
No 96.4
Several points about this chart are noteworthy. The first is that at least 76.7 percent of the murderers were relatives, friends or acquaintances of the victim. In fact, the victim's murderer was 21 times more likely to be a relative or acquaintance than a stranger. Even in the 14 percent of the cases involving forced entry, the vast majority of the intruders were known to the victim. The threat of forced entry is the most commonly cited reason for possessing a domestic firearm, but the researchers found no protective benefit for this subgroup either.

The researchers write: "Efforts to increase home security have largely focused on preventing unwanted entry, but the greatest threat to the lives of household members appears to come from within."

Of the 388 homicides surveyed, 21 victims died while unsuccessfully trying to defend themselves with a gun. Only 15 of the deaths were ruled justifiable homicide or legal self-defense, and four of these were by the police.

The authors did present their study with several limitations. First, they acknowledged that they limited their study of homicides to those which occurred in the home, their goal simply being to measure the effectiveness of gun protection in the home. Homicides at other locations (such as bars, work or the streets) were not counted. Therefore, the dynamics of homicide in these locations might be quite different.

Second, they acknowledged that their research was conducted in urban settings that lacked a substantial Hispanic population. The dynamics of homicide in that community therefore might be quite different.

Third, they acknowledged that the arrow of causality could point in the opposite direction in some of the cases. For example, a person might acquire a gun in response to a specific threat. If the threat was then carried out, the correlation between the gun and the murder could be partly attributed to the failure of the weapon to provide protection.

Fourth, they acknowledged that a third, unidentified factor might be responsible for both gun possession and murder risk. For example, the victims may have had violent, aggressive personalities or some other psychological disorder that predisposed them to both greater gun possession and murder. The authors note that they included several behavioral markers for aggression and violence in their survey, but they did not conduct a full "psychological autopsy" given the impractical nature of such a task. Still, they note that "a link between gun ownership and any psychological tendency toward violence or victimization would have to be extremely strong to account for an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7."

So, what are the study's conclusions? The authors write:

"Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry."
It is important to note that Kellermann's findings agree with many other studies. For example, the FBI reports that in 1993, only 1.7 percent of all handgun murders were justifiable homicides. Kellermann's team found that only 3.6 percent of the 420 homicides it studied were justifiable. The FBI found 19.1 percent of all homicides to be felony-related; Kellermann found 21.9 percent of those in the home to be felony-related. In 1994, the FBI found that only 13 percent of all murder victims were killed by strangers. Kellermann found that 3.6 percent of the domestic homicides were strangers and 17.4 percent were never identified. The FBI found that 12 percent of all killers in 1994 were related to the victim; Kellermann found this figure to be 12.4 percent in domestic homicides. (2)

Kellermann's research also confirms numerous studies like the one done by Linda Saltzman, which found that assaults by family members or intimate acquaintances are far more fatal when the weapon is a gun. (3) There are also many cohort and interrupted time-series studies that demonstrate a strong link between gun availability and homicide rates in the community. (4) Kellermann's study has now confirmed this correlation at the individual household level as well.

Criticisms of the study

Pro-gun advocates have raised a number of objections to this survey. The following are actual arguments taken from the Internet and the NRA: (5)

1. "99.8 percent of the protective uses of guns do not involve homicides," says Paul Blackman of the NRA. Defensive gun uses include waving the weapon, firing warning shots, wounding the intruder, etc.

It is simply untrue that researchers cannot measure the nonfatal protective benefits of firearms, or that Kellermann's survey failed to detect such a benefit. If firearms deter, scare away or wound intruders, then the murder victimization rate of gun owners should be lower than non-gun owners. The absence of a gun in the home would have been recognized as a murder risk, rather than the presence of a gun.

Kellermann's case-control method was ideally suited to detect such benefits, if they existed. For example, suppose that guns save 100,000 lives a year, through nonfatal means. Assuming a perfect protection rate, we would see no homicides in households with guns, and 100,000 in households without them. A case-control survey would find the risk associated with guns to be 0.0 -- a perfect benefit. But suppose (more realistically) that guns protect their owners only half the time. There might then be, say, 100,000 homicides in homes with guns and 200,000 in homes without them. A researcher using the case-control method would find that 33 percent of the cases and 50 percent of the controls owned guns, for an odds ratio of .50. Being less than 1, that's a very strong benefit.

Of course, Kellermann's survey found quite the opposite -- a risk 2.7 times greater.

2. Guns do not emit magic rays that control people's minds, or magnetize murderers to the doorstep.

This strawman argument is based on a false stereotype. Over 76 percent of the homicides were committed by a relative or acquaintance of the victim, and only 3.6 percent were verified as strangers breaking in. Furthermore, arguments and romantic triangles comprised half the homicides. But the most important point here is that a gun in the home only raised the risk of gun homicide -- not homicide by any other means. The most straightforward explanation is that greater gun availability transformed a normal family fight into something much more deadly.

3. People threatened by violence bought guns to defend themselves, hence the correlation between gun ownership and murder.

This is possible, but the number would only be very small, for the following reasons. The study already controlled for domestic violence, so the only way this could happen is if the murderer threatened the life of the victim before things escalated into violence. The victim would then have to buy a gun, which would fail to protect.

Several things make this unlikely. First, we would expect a history of violence to precede any threats or attempts on a person's life, which is, after all, the ultimate form of violence. Second, the study showed that gun ownership resulted in an increased risk in gun homicides only, not any other type of homicides. Why would the murderer restrict himself to a gun, and then only if the victim had a gun? Third, this makes a poor case for gun deterrence, since the correlation is only possible when the gun fails to protect. Again, the researchers found no protective benefits of gun ownership.

4. Kellermann's study didn't document whether a firearm used in a particular homicide was the same one kept in the home, or whether it might have been carried in by the murderer.

True, the study doesn't say, but the study's findings make it logically impossible for a significant number of these guns to have been brought in from the outside. The study found that keeping a gun in the house raised the chances of gun homicide only, not any other kind of homicide. It also found that it raised the chances of being killed by a family member or intimate acquaintance, not a stranger or non-intimate acquaintance. We can therefore eliminate the possibility that owning a gun raises the risk of a stranger breaking in (and then only with a gun!). The only alternative is that a family member or intimate acquaintance brought a second gun into the house on the day of the murder (any longer-term storage would have classified it as a "gun in the house"). That all murderers using handguns would do this seems highly implausible. It is also unlikely that these live-in murderers would restrict themselves to guns; we should expect to see other murder methods employed as well. The only plausible conclusion is that the vast majority of the guns used for homicide were the ones kept in the house.

Pro-gun advocates might try a different tack. If an angry spouse has a gun, the other might seek protection by buying a gun also. However, this strategy had to fail for the survey to find a correlation between gun ownership and homicide. This does nothing to rescue the pro-gunner's point that guns protect their owners.

5. Proxies for the murder victim were not asked if the gun had previously been used for self-defense.

What this objection is asking us to imagine is this: a gun prevents a murder from happening in, say, nine cases. But on the tenth it fails (by necessity, to produce the murder victim in question). If guns really provided this kind of protection, we could easily imagine that one of the previous nine murder attempts would have been successful, had the victim not possessed a gun. In that case, non-gun owners would have seen a higher murder rate. This is something the study would have found (see point 1), but it did not; it found a higher murder rate among gun owners. Pro-gunners might then argue that an individual facing a likely threat sought protection by buying a gun, hence the higher correlation. But this is the same argument rebutted in point 3. Ultimately, the pro-gunners starting assumption is incorrect. Guns do not prevent a series of threats, one of which ultimately succeeds; rather, guns enhance the possibility of murder.

6. "These people were highly susceptible to homicide," says Paul Blackman of the NRA. "We know that because they were killed."

If there is an Illogic Hall of Shame, this remark deserves to be emblazoned above its front entrance. By this reasoning, we should not put seat belts in cars, because people killed in car crashes were susceptible to those accidents anyway.

What Blackman is doing here is evoking a general risk for murder, while ignoring its specific risk multipliers. You may, in general, have an antagonistic person in your life given to flashes of murderous temper. But there are specific factors that may increase the risk of murder. Does he drink? Use drugs? Commit crime? Own a gun? Increasing any of these behaviors increases the risk. But it makes no sense to increase the risk multiplier, let someone get murdered, and then argue that the multiplier was not at fault, since the victim was obviously susceptible to murder anyway.

This argument also ignores one of the study's findings, that a gun in the home increased the risk of gun homicide only, and not any other method of homicide.

7. Of course if someone gets shot in their home, there's bound to be a gun in the home. And drowning victims are always found near water.

This is a variation of the Blackman argument above. Water is not the only thing correlated with drowning. There are all the usual risk multipliers, such as a lack of lifeguards, life jackets, warning signs, adult supervision, etc. And notice that this analogy is incorrect. The analogy of guns isn't to water; it's to a lack of lifeguards. The analogy to water is actually murder in general.

8. The majority of the homicides were not committed by guns, so could not have been committed by Kellermann's scary "guns in the home."

Homes that kept guns experienced an increase in homicides, but this increase was entirely due to gun-related homicides, not homicides by any other method. This objection misses the point.

9. The researchers did not include in their analysis those cases where the home-owner shot a non-resident intruder.

These cases were rare, but even so, this objection is irrelevant. The protective benefits of a gun would have still shown up in the different victimization rates of gun-owning and gun-less households. (See point 1.)

10. This study was conducted by medical doctors who were out of their league; this is an issue best left for criminologists.

Epidemiologists are highly experienced at using the case-control method to determine risk factors. This is how cigarette smoking was linked to lung cancer, for example. The statistical method is the same no matter what the risk factor, be it cigarettes, a virus, a missing vitamin or a gun. A good analogy is that of an astronomer using optics technology to make a breakthrough in optometry.

11. The use of the case-control method allows for spurious associations.

This objection is bogus, since it ignores the role of multivariate analysis.

12. A disproportionate number of survey respondents were criminals, hence the correlation between gun ownership and murder.

But the survey controlled for criminal backgrounds and domestic violence. The gun/murder correlation was reached after multivariate analysis factored these variables out.

13. The study was conducted in urban areas, which have high crime. This would promote both gun ownership and death in violent crimes.

But the survey controlled for neighborhoods. The researchers matched the control subjects by neighborhood to the case subjects.

14. Most of the victims were black, and blacks have a higher murder rate.

Irrelevant. The study controlled for race.

15. The victims typically had stunningly different lifestyles from the controls: more drinking, crime, drug use, domestic violence, etc.

Again, this objection ignores that multivariate analysis factored out all these variables. The "2.7 times" statistic measures gun possession alone (within the limits of the study's 31 variables).

16. The survey failed to ask about other variables.

The survey asked questions about 31 variables, but in a complex world it's always possible to think up more. Kellermann asked about the most obvious ones; even then, only six retained significance in the final analysis. If there were indeed a "missing variable," it would have to be extremely strong -- and probably extremely obvious as well -- to produce a murder risk of 2.7.

17. The survey failed to determine the strength of the variables (severity of drug use, domestic violence, crime, etc.)

Indeed, the study asked only "yes or no" questions about problems in the home. For example, it asked whether any member of the household had been arrested, without determining the severity of the criminal charge. However, just because the individual questions did not control for severity does not mean the entire study didn't, since it asked a total of 15 questions about behavior, many closely related to each other. But this is really an argument about refining the study's results, not overturning its conclusions, which would be highly unlikely.

18. The study underestimated the amount of drug use or other domestic problems, which was really the cause of an increased murder risk for gun owners.

Not true. After the researchers controlled for these other risks, the murder risk associated with guns increased, from 1.6 in the univariate analysis to 2.7 in the multivariate analysis. If the study had underestimated the amount of drug use or other domestic problems, then the true risk associated with guns would be even greater.

19. The number of guns in the control homes were underreported.

If this were true, this would indeed artificially raise the murder risk of having a gun in the home. Conversely, if the number of guns in the case homes were underreported, then this would artificially lower the murder risk associated with guns. But the authors do not believe this was a problem. First, in two of the three counties they studied, they compared their survey results to a pilot study of homes listed as the addresses of owners of registered handguns. The survey respondents' answers were found to be generally valid. Second, the rate of gun ownership by the control respondents in all three counties was comparable to estimates derived by previous social surveys and Cook's gun-prevalence index. (6)

Of course, respondents might not have disclosed possession of illegal guns. Pro-gunners argue that the case subjects were prevented from underreporting the possession of such guns, because murder itself is almost impossible to underreport. (It's difficult to hide either a corpse or a person's absence). And a murder causes the police to search -- and usually find -- the murder weapon, so the truth about gun ownership in the case homes probably came out. However, control subjects have not been investigated by the police for guns, nor do they desire such a search, so they may lie about possessing an illegal gun. The researchers were aware of this possibility, and they assured the respondents that their answers were confidential, and that they could freely refuse to answer any questions. Even so, only a very few respondents refused to answer a question. Ultimately, the possibility of underreporting remains pure speculation at the moment, and further research needs to clarify this question.

Conclusion

The Kellermann study is valid, if incomplete -- as any study must necessarily be. More research needs to be done on other possible variables contributing to the murder rate, although Kellermann has apparently identified the most important ones. The results could be refined by determining the severity of some factors, like criminal background. And it would be good to reconfirm the honesty of the respondents' answers. But the study itself is sound, and gun-control advocates can use it with confidence.

Return to Overview

Endnotes:

1. Arthur Kellermann et. al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," The New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, pp. 1084-1091.

2. Federal Bureau of Investigations, Crime in the United States, annual.

3. Linda Saltzman, et. al., "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992;267, pp. 3043-7.

4. A.J. Reiss, Jr. and J.A. Roth, eds., Understanding and Preventing Violence: Panel on the Understanding and Control of Violent Behavior (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993), pp. 42-97; P.J. Cook, "The Effect of Gun Availability on Robbery and Robber Murder: A Cross Section Study of Fifty Cities," Policy Stud Rev Annu 1979;3, pp. 743-81; J.H. Sloan, A.L. Kellermann, D.T. Reay, et. al., "Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicide: a Tale of Two Cities," New England Journal of Medicine, 1988;319, pp. 1256-62; C. Loftin, et. al., "Effects of Restrictive Licensing of Handguns on Homicide and Suicide in the District of Columbia," New England Journal of Medicine, 1991;325, pp. 1615-20.

5. I am deeply indebted to Tim Lambert of the University of New South Wales for providing many of these objections and rebuttals, which came from his archived postings to the Internet newsgroup talk.politics.guns. Many of the responses here are based on his answers.

6. J.D. Wright, P. Rossi, K. Daly, E. Weber-Burdin, "Weapons, crime and violence in America: a literature review and research agenda," (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983), pp. 212-60, 361-411; P.J. Cook, "The effect of gun availability on robbery and robber murder: a cross section study of fifty cities," Policy Stud Rev Annu 1979; 3, pp. 743-81.
Poppet
Posted: Sunday, December 16, 2012 10:46:32 AM

Rank: Cheeky Chick

Joined: 10/5/2012
Posts: 6,479
TURN OFF THE NEWS.......


Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.


It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed
people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.