I knew it was only a matter of time before someone went down this road. I posted this back on page three:

It's no secret that the NEJM is the most virulent anti-gun publication in the entire field of medicine. Quoting them as an "unbiased" source simply displays both your ignorance as well as your politics.

You accuse the NRA of releasing "propaganda". Our leadership has an open invitation to anyone willing to debate gun issues with them, to anyone who claims the information released by the NRA is less than factual and accurate. College debate rules - anytime, anywhere. "Scholars" and "doctors" such as those publishing their easily peer-discounted tripe in publications like the NEJM have so far never taken up the offer. Meanwhile, their fellows find it incredibly easy to pick apart their biased articles extolling better health through gun control:

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control | Foundation for Economic Education

The most prestigious medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which claims openness to contrary views, is not immune to bias in this area. In fact, it is one of the most anti-gun publications in medical journalism. The NEJM routinely excludes articles that dissent from its well-known, strident, and inflexible position of gun-control advocacy. Editors have come and gone, but the governing board has made sure that the anti-gun position remains unaltered.

And yes, the CDC has been exceptionally well funded in its "gun violence as a health issue" research over the years. Further down in the same article linked above we find this reference to the (debunked) CDC "study" from which the numbers in your meme are derived:

In a 1986 NEJM paper, Kellermann and associates, for example, claimed their “scientific research” proved that defending oneself or one’s family with a firearm in the home is dangerous and counterproductive, claiming “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.” This erroneous assertion is what Dr. Edgar Suter, chairman of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research (DIPR), has accurately termed Kellermann’s “43 times fallacy” for gun ownership.7

In a critical and now classic review published in the March 1994 Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (JMAG), Suter not only found evidence of “methodologic and conceptual errors,” such as prejudicially truncated data and non-sequitur logic, but also “overt mendacity,” including the listing of “the correct methodology which was described but never used by the authors.” Moreover, the gun-control researchers “deceptively understated” the protective benefits of guns. Suter wrote: “The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives and medical costs saved, the injuries prevented, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1 percent-0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000.”8

More on the CDC and its place in gun control history:

Forbes Welcome

Perhaps the president has forgotten that the CDC has previously been funded, then later defunded, regarding medical research for gun violence. His directive, if funded again by Congress, would end a virtual 17 year ban which stipulates, quite appropriately, that none of CDC’s federal financing can be used to advocate or promote gun control…exactly what CDC was originally doing.

In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

That's about as cogent a rebuttal as I expected.

Yep, funny how Cali is now a state that OKs death with Dignity, and he wants to make it harder for some loser to succeed in Suicide.
I would trust the NRA, a group that teaches Gun safety and how to use them, as well as defending our 2nd Amendment RIGHTS over the currant resident of the WH who's own home town has the strictest gun laws in the country, yet also has one of the highest murder rates, yet that is ignored.
Interesting how liberals can't find any real evidence for their research unless someone else pays for it. Funny how liberals think that it is bad to use tax $$ on traumatic brain injury over giving it to some Anti-2nd loser that can't research news stories unless someone ELSES $$ is given to them. Maybe there is a reason there isn't the data they want, like it isn't the problem Anti-2nd liberals who want to protect criminals would like everyone to believe.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444777120.jpg
Given the NUMBER of people who who cans, if the BS liberals keep pushing, wouldn't everyplace have gun related death rates like Chicago..

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444777533.jpg


Some of us believe in and exercise our 2nd Amendment RIGHT.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444777160.jpg

And take that Responsibility very seriously
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444777372.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444777283.jpghttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444778949.jpg

I'm so pleased that I did not disappoint, although it was quite a challenge living up to your inspiring post of "LOL".

to the op- a territorial dog like a rottweiller is great, and also exterior lights wherever there is a ground floor door or window. I like a .22 pistol for home defense myself. A .22 round to the face stops pretty much everything (a .22 beretta with adjusted trigger, recoil spring and silencer works. it will fire a round as fast as you can pull the trigger and not wake the neighbors). If you are concerned about being nervous and shakey confronting an intruder, then a .410 shotgun is great alternative. Make sure that you hold any long gun by the end of the barrel (and trigger/grip) to aid in aiming (recommended close combat technique as of like 10 years ago).
com

Actually no stats are quoted. If you do the research, it's like a 0.0001% chance, so basically it s BS

If I'm woken from a dead sleep by someone breaking into my home, the last thing I'm going to plan on is shooting someone in the face with a .22.

You gonna monkey roll outta bed while grabbing your katana :D?

Happened last night, though the story is a bit complicated. Thing is, with a gun, you don't always have time to reconsider/recover/reconcile from that split second decision...

Man Shot, Killed by Father After Breaking Into Their Covina-Area Home: Authorities | KTLA

The NRA is basically an industry trade organization now. It wasn't always and a prior head of the NRA basically said advocating for Open Carry is irresponsible nonsense. Anyone who doesn't realize they are wholly a propaganda/lobbying machine has to be aggressively ignorant.

Interesting to note that the states with the most restrictions on guns have the fewest gun deaths per person, although you can cherry pick a few cities that are not aligned with this result. Gun Laws, Deaths and Crimes

But guess what? Nobody's mind is gonna change on a car forum.

Too bad your burn fizzled so hard. See, in order to be effective, you'd have to comment about the post you originally replied to.

That's why there is a separate forum for the slow folks. BTW, I typed this really slowly, and feel free to move your lips while you're reading it.

^^^^THE TRUTH.

What's hard is that there are no pro-gun lobbies with any heft that aren't marketing arms for firearms manufacturers. I'm a fan and owner of firearms, and have sympathy toward a generous reading of the 2nd Amendment. But there is clearly something very wrong with the way this stuff is talked about in the U.S. The debate is framed in a binary way, with a lot of slippery slope logical fallacy thrown in for the propaganda factor. The big problem with having a ready firearm is that most folks aren't trained, and consider the mere possession of a firearm loaded with ammunition to be a magic wand to wave that with give them protection from harm. Most folks who own sporting rifles (ARs and AKs) would be more of a danger to themselves and others if it came down to actually resisting government tyranny, because they have zero training and experience with that sort of firearm use. The same can be said of home defense. Middle of the night, wake up, grab pistol, and....?

Actually one of the key tenants of self defense with a gun is knowing your target. You may not have confidence in your ability to do so, in which case you are correct in your stance about not owning a gun. But don't have the arrogance to apply one story to the ability of millions of responsible gun owners.

By your logic, because thousands of kids die annually in car accidents, we should ban cars.

There are regulations to how and where kids ride in cars, because of how vulnerable children are to automobile accidents. I didn't see where techweenie said we should ban guns, so maybe you're rebutting an argument he didn't actually make?

Reportedly, the guy knew his target and was afraid for his safety. Sounds like a good shoot to me.

I'm not sure how a rational person could construe his posts in any other way?

Back to the children in cars topic for a moment, funny how despite dozens of laws regarding child seat safety, it's a pretty regular occurrence for a child to be injured in a car accident because they were not properly restrained. Amazing how more laws don't solve the problem.....

And yet, I don't see anywhere where he has called for a ban. You're inferring that, and without any sort of basis in anything he's actually posted. As far as cars and kids, are you really serious? The stats are clear as to how bad it used to be before regulation. But hey, since murders and rapes happen anyway, might as well not make them criminal, right? And since people die from food poisoning, might as well not have any laws on bacteria contamination of food or water, yes?

The idea that since bad stuff happens, you just shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well" is about as idiotic as it gets. That line of thinking has zero merit.

I have owned ARs since the 80s, like many others here, yet we are still alive as are those who live with or around us. Every gun owner here, who has suggested getting a gun, also suggested learning the proper handling & use of said gun, get training, get comfortable, spend time at the range, ect. If you BS you keep spouting had any truth to it, based on the number of people who LEGALLY own guns & have them in their homes, but fact is, as already pointed out, the numbers are VERY, VERY LOW, unlike liberal controlled crap-holes like detroit, chicago, DC, LA, ect, those places have much higher gun deaths.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ql1XtOs9VbE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fl8vPIeV5oI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444863746.jpg


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444863897.jpg

Agreed, it could have been someone breaking to murder them.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/g7eyAQdTIKE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Damn right, this is what will be shooting at their head. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444862487.jpg
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444862502.jpg
Now, I would use this if I had one:p
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444862553.jpg
The fact that so many crimes & shooting occurred in liberal communities, guess we should ban liberals. \
Just because some of you aren't responsible enough and are scared of guns doesn't give you the right to disarm the rest of us. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444863094.jpghttp://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444864511.jpg
Looks like children who are raised to respect & use weapons to shoot criminals.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wS7LKwt1j18" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Looks like Mothers do as well.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TVbDrdCm7AY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YLmtTPxOZx8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Seniors.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ehhuyCXGIvI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1444865967.jpg

I'm not sure you can construe his posts in any other way. But feel free to avoid taking a stand and instead attack the opinions of others.

My example with car seats is an obvious extreme, but is it any more ridiculous than thinking gun control will actually keep guns out of criminals' hands? My point is that laws have a piss poor track record of actually modifying human behavior. People who don't care won't care just because of the law.

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you reply. You might learn a thing or two.