There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns. However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise ~ David Hemenway, Harvard Professor of Health Policy.
Rusty Shackelford is a blogger who appropriated the name of a character from the (now cancelled) animated series King of the Hill. Actually, the name of the Character was Dale Gribble; Rusty Shackelford is an alias the paranoid Dale uses "whenever he doesn't want his real name known". (The Character) Dale Gribble is an individual so stupid that he didn't know his wife was having a long term affair with another man. An affair that lead to a son that looks like his father. A father who is Native American (Dale and his wife are both White).
I bring this up because I think "Rusty" must have decided to choose his blogger ID because this fictional animated character and he share a similar intellect (and possibly the same "cowardly nature"?). So, why do I say Rusty is dumb? Well, I've read numerous comments he has authored (mostly on another blog I used to frequent until the proprietor banned me). A particularly stupid comment was, however, left in response to a blog post of mine (a commentary concerning the George Zimmerman trial).
First of all, I'd like to thank Rusty for stopping by. Any and all comments are welcome. Next, I'd like to respond to what Rusty wrote. Maybe you will be able to discern what exactly Rusty said that is so incredibly dumb that me explaining why won't be necessary (although I will anyway, following the comment). I'm not talking about something I simply disagree with for partisan reasons (Rusty being a Conservative and me being a Liberal), but something anyone of any political stripe should recognize as a comment that could only be made by someone with an IQ below room temperature. That comment is as follows...
|Rusty Schmuckelford: Col. Sanders, you can have your own opinion. you cant have your own facts. A perfect reason why you continue to get booted off popular blogs are your idiotic statements like... "stats show that people who buy guns to protect themselves from home invasions often end up shooting a family member" or "the stand your ground laws have lead to a massive increase in justified homicides". you make up silly shit that and because you say it becomes a fact in your mind. Just of an example why the people at Will's place got tired of your assinine comments and showed you the door. (7/02/2013 AT 3:52pm).|
OK, there you have it. Can you guess what it is that Rusty says that proves without a doubt that he is seriously lacking in brainpower (ignoring the lack of capitalization and proper punctuation)? It is that I say "silly shit" and it becomes "fact in my mind". No, Rusty, you idiot... The stats I cited are real. Also well know, which is why I didn't bother linking to them. The simple fact that they exist is accepted reality. Now, perhaps one could disagree with the various studies (if one were of a Conservative persuasion). You could argue that their methodology was flawed, and perhaps link to your own study (on some Libertarian or Conservative website) that "proves" these facts wrong. But nobody who isn't an utter moron would suggest that I, Dervish Sanders, "made them up".
Also, I do not "continue to get booted off popular blogs". I have been shown the door exactly three times, and only one of those blogs could even remotely be described as "popular". Will Hart banned me from his dinky blog that only you, dmarks and rAtional nAtion are regular readers and commenters on (with two or three others who stop by once in a while). dmarks, even though his blog is mind-numbingly boring, seems to have a half dozen or so regular readers who comment. rAtional nAtion is, I would say, the only one that comes close to being "popular". But, even though he has a lot of followers, it still seems to be just a handful of people are responsible for most of the comments.
That isn't to say I think my blog is popular (least you counter by bashing my blog). I acknowledge that, among the four blogs (those belonging to Will, dmarks, Rational, and myself), mine is the one that receives the least traffic. Although, when compared to either of your two blogs, it is a smashing success.
Now, in regards to the guns stats you think are purely products of my imagination and otherwise simply do not exist... I shall now post some links and excerpts to PROVE that the statistics do exist and are not "silly shit" I made up and convinced myself was real. Despite the fact that for practically everyone else in existence it isn't necessary (they know the stats exist, regardless of whether or not they agree with them).
In a 12/17/2012 article from the Minnesota Post author Susan Perry discusses "the health risk of having a gun in the home". The stats cited by the author are from a 2011 meta-review (a report that summarizes all the studies out there) from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center...
|Minn Post: The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes. Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children. And it doesn't matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own. If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.|
The article also says there is no evidence that says having a gun reduces the risk of begin a victim of crime, nor does it "reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in". In short it is far more dangerous to have a gun than to not have one, which completely destroys the argument Conservatives make in favor of people (single mothers, in particular) having guns for "self protection". You see, it is pro-gun Conservatives like Rusty who make up shit about how beneficial having a firearm in the home for "protection" is... when the real factual studies show otherwise.
In regards to my assertion that "the stand your ground laws have lead to a massive increase in justified homicides", which is the other statement Rusty believes to be a figment of my imagination... NPR reports that "stand your ground linked to increase in homicides". During a 1/2/2013 broadcast of All Things Considered (the third most listened to radio program in the United States with 12 million listeners each weekday), the following information is disclosed...
|NPR: Researchers who've studied the effect of the laws have found that states with a stand your ground law have more homicides than states without such laws. "These laws lower the cost of using lethal force", says Mark Hoekstra, an economist with Texas A&M University who examined stand your ground laws. "Our study finds that, as a result, you get more of it".|
According to Hoesktra the increase in justifiable homicides can be quantified. He says his research shows a 7 to 9 percent increase in states that pass the laws, which translates to 500 to 700 more homicides per year across the united states (out of approximately 14,000 annual that are deemed justified).
So, agree or disagree, but one simply can NOT deny that the studies have been done and the statistics exist. Whether you believe the statistics to be right or wrong, remember Rusty claimed that I made them up. He was speaking of me, Dervish Sanders, and not researchers and academics I might quote. He said I personally made up the facts I cited. This post proves definitively that I did not. You could say the researcher and academics I quoted are all liars and they made up the stats, but whether you think the research I quoted has any validity or not, it is an absolute undeniable proven beyond any doubt fact that I (personally) did not make anything up. So fu#k you Rusty, you dumbshit.
You have anything to say to that Rusty, or are you going to run away with your tail between your legs? If he does respond I predict major backtracking. He'll probably claim that he didn't mean what he said; that I interpreted him wrong. What he REALLY meant was that the sources I quote are bad. That I only refer to the "silly shit" of others. But you can read for yourself what he wrote; he chastised me for thinking I could have my "own facts".
I call bullshit on that claim and say you are an utter moron regardless of whether you are lying or actually believe I pulled these facts out of my ass. If Rusty is lying he is dumber than a box of rocks, as virtually nobody could believe that lie, as most people know the research exists. If Rusty actually believes I made up the gun stats I cited, then he is delusional; and I mean that literally. He'd a nutter who lives in a imaginary world where no information that contradicts his Conservative worldview exists.
Audio Description: Report from Shankar Vedantam, the science correspondent for NPR News in which the effect of "Stand Your Ground" laws on the "justified" homicide rates across the country is examined, 1/2/2013 (6:13).