wheredoyoustand.com

 

I saw this on a story about the newest Medal of Honor winner. A place to vote and post a comment.

 

Just thought I would pass it along because I know how you all like to bring it to the masses.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXSek5-_AFY

I didn't realize an antique musket is as effective for home defense as an AR or a Glock. But clearly she must be an expert, becuase she has footage of a male model making fingerbang gestures while showing off his fabulous hair.

About the only thing in that that wasn't moronic was the last statement.. bear in mind it is a weapon and don't be stupid.

 

As for the 4.5x more likley to be shot... it's a bs.

 

The study referenced has questionable methodology. They took 667 shooting victims over 3 years, and determined if they were in possession of a gun. About 6% were. As a control group, they called up random individuals not incolved in any shooitn gand asked them some questions, amongst them if they owned a gun.

 

Now what ehy determined is that a person with a firearm being attacked is 4.5x more likely than someone from the control group sitting at home to be shot in an assault. This conclusion despite the fact that Of those people shot in an assault, 94% were not in possession of a firearm.

 

What they really determined is sitting at home answering the phone is not particularly risky.

The statistics used are blatantly misinterpreted. Take the very first one, it is well known.

 

"65 children each day are killed by firearms"

 

Direct quote from this video.

 

 

That smacks of an FBI report, in which "children" is defined as all minors up to the age of 17. This includes gang members. It doesn't take a genius to realize that the majority of those "children" are gang scum killing each other over drugs, turf wars, etc.

 

I believe that a fellow named John R. Lott had a few things to say about the statistical report that such statements have derived from. He has published a couple books on the subject, very informative.