Study finds higher homicide risk in homes with handguns

[NationalMatch]

Most U.S. gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, surveys show. But a study published Monday suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don't have such weapons at home.

"We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects" from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.

The study has several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims were killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldn't account for illegal guns and looked only at handguns, not rifles or other firearms.

The dataset also was limited to registered voters in California who were 21 and older. It's not clear that the findings are generalizable to the whole state, let alone to the rest of the country, the authors acknowledged.

But some outside experts said the work was well done, important and the largest research of its kind.

https://ktul.com/news/nation-world/...university-gun-ownership-data-in-home-weapons

 

[1911Sooner]

So they are saying that home owners with no guns are never shot to death. I'll be damn.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

Ah, the old “surrender your dangerous weapons and the government will protect you” schtick. So thankful there is no hidden agenda with these folks….
Every time I read drivel like this it just hardens my resolve and I go out an buy more guns and ammo. (Apparently I need more guns to protect me from my current guns)

 

[Seadog]

Most U.S. gun owners say they own firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, surveys show. But a study published Monday suggests people who live with handgun owners are shot to death at a higher rate than those who don't have such weapons at home.

"We found zero evidence of any kind of protective effects" from living in a home with a handgun, said David Studdert, a Stanford University researcher who was the lead author of the Annals of Internal Medicine study.

The study has several shortcomings. For example, the researchers said they could not determine which victims were killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons. They couldn't account for illegal guns and looked only at handguns, not rifles or other firearms.

The dataset also was limited to registered voters in California who were 21 and older. It's not clear that the findings are generalizable to the whole state, let alone to the rest of the country, the authors acknowledged.

But some outside experts said the work was well done, important and the largest research of its kind.

https://ktul.com/news/nation-world/...university-gun-ownership-data-in-home-weapons

More anti gun propaganda.

 

[NationalMatch]

This article hits the news after the Sacramento shootings. The pimps in congress are likely going to install a rabid liberal, anti gun, dim bulb "justice" in scotus, and the gov of kalifornia and creepy Joe are calling for more restrictions on our second amendment rights.

The article exposes the weakness of the "research." (For those of you who don't know, Stanford is A) in rabidly liberal/anti gun Bay Area Kalifornia and B) is noted as a research institute.

This part caught my eye: "the researchers said they could not determine which victims were killed by the handgun owners or with the in-home weapons."

That's a huge limitation. They're clearly basing their conclusions upon assumptions they chose to make. They're starting off with a false premise and want us to believe their conclusion is valid. That's impossible. Logic 101. But liberals have been doing that ....... forever.

Also, another huge limitation: "They couldn't account for illegal guns and looked only at handguns, not rifles or other firearms."

We already know illegal guns are a problem, not of gun ownership, but of criminal control. It comes down to the same old story, viz. a particular demographic, the usual suspects, are guilty of 9.5 of 10 gun homicides.

Again, stop punishing law abiding gun owners with an anti gun agenda. We're not the problem. Soros funded DAs are the problem. Liberal judges are the problem. Stop releasing these animals back into the population. They are the problem.

And this limitation destroys the study: "The dataset also was limited to registered voters in California who were 21 and older." And the lead researcher is in Stanford. As in Bay Area. As in san fransicko. That makes the entire "study" nothing but antigun propaganda, as Seadog says.

Finally, they admit (further down in the article, of course) "The rates are low" and the absolute risk is small, but it's important to consider the increase in a person's risk of being killed, Studdert said.

Statistically, he admits it's a big nothing burger.

I post all of this because the globalists are succeeding in destroying The Republic and have to disarm us to complete their plan. The borders are open and inflation is headed to record levels.

That's the plan, viz. govt creates the disaster, then swoops in via martial law to protect us. But before they can do that, they've got to take away our guns. And to do that, they've got to erase the Constitution. They've already said it needs to be burned since it was written by a bunch of slave owning white guys.

Elections have consequences. Stolen elections, much more so.

 

[Okie4570]

Much like people who own cars are more likely to die in auto accidents, etc I would assume.

 

[Gadsden]

This article hits the news after the Sacramento shootings. The pimps in congress are likely going to install a rabid liberal, anti gun, dim bulb "justice" in scotus, and the gov of kalifornia and creepy Joe are calling for more restrictions on our second amendment rights.

Of course they will and of course it comes out on the heels of another mass shooting. The democrats will do all those things and more given the chance. As we've seen time and time again the libs on the far-left "never let a good crisis go to waste". I also would not be surprised if, like the "peaceful protests" we saw, these shootings weren't manufactured by the same people (think Soros) calling for gun control, which is really just a preamble to gun confiscation.

 

[NationalMatch]

Much like people who own cars are more likely to die in auto accidents, etc I would assume.

Some perspective:
Cause of Death Odds of Dying:
Heart Disease and Cancer 1 in 7
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease 1 in 28
Intentional Self-harm 1 in 95
Unintentional Poisoning by and Exposure to Noxious Substances 1 in 96
Motor Vehicle Crash 1 in 114
Fall 1 in 127
Assault by Firearm 1 in 370
Car Occupant 1 in 645
Pedestrian Incident 1 in 647
Motorcycle Rider Incident 1 in 985
Unintentional Drowning and Submersion 1 in 1,188
Exposure to Fire, Flames or Smoke 1 in 1,498
Choking from Inhalation and Ingestion of Food 1 in 3,461
Pedacyclist Incident 1 in 4,486
Firearms Discharge 1 in 6,905

http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html

 

[Louro]

I get it, I should surrender my gun, so I can make my home more secure. Man, that is a no brainer. Friking idiots.

 

[NationalMatch]

I get it, I should surrender my gun, so I can make my home more secure. Man, that is a no brainer. Friking idiots.

Hey, it's kalifornia. Worse, it's Bay Area. That's the sewer with thousands of addicts living in tents on the streets. Sewer, literally. The san fran town council determined it was discriminatory to force them to find proper rest room facilities. The sidewalks became their toilets.

There's even a crap app for smart phones to show those fools what part of town to avoid.

And I'm going to listen to what they have to say about guns?

Not a chance. Any group of people that stupid can't dispense advice about anything.