Strong Reason to Retain the Second Amendment

[billc]

A look at arnisadors study...

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5428461#post5428461

an important point...

Well, they're STARTING with homes where a homicide or suicide occurred and then checking to see how many of those homes contain a firearm. This automatically excludes the tens of millions of homes that contain firearms that DON'T have suicides or homicides. I'm speculating here but I would guess that attempted suicides and homicides are more likely to be "successful" if the weapon of choice is a firearm so looking only at "successful" events would automatically bias toward firearms being present. At the very least, I would think that attempted homicides and suicides would have to be included, otherwise you're automatically biased by the "effectiveness ratio" of firearms versus other methods. Seems like the only true measurement would be to know the total number of homes that have and do not have firearms and the total number of both "attempted/failed" and "successful" suicides and homicides in each set. I wouldn't be surprised to find that homes with firearms have a higher rate of "successful" homicides and suicides but I'd be willing to be that the ATTEMPT ratio is the same.

The study and the ones it cites are profoundly flawed for three major reasons and two smaller but significant reasons: 1) They includes felons, gang members, drug addicts, and active criminals who "own" guns as their "gun ownership' set. Gangbanger has his illegal gun. He shoots his brother -- it counts in this "study" as evidence of the danger of gun ownership. Drug addict/mugger has a gun. He nods off on smack. His kid sister plays with gun and shoots herself. It counts in this study. For all we know 50 to 95% of the non suicide events in this studies are criminals with guns at home. They do NOT control for legal owners vs criminals who have a weapon at home, 2) It ignores completely brandishment and showing of a gun by homeowner in which the gun is not fired, but its use as a threat ends an assault, robbery, burglary, attempted rape or home invasion. In other words the only incidents where the gun is fired "count." If your daughter stops a rapist by pointing the weapon and having him flee this doesn't count. If you stop someone breaking down the door by hitting them with that red dot and watching them run, it is doesn't count. That is seriously perverse. Pointing a gun at a would be rapist and not having to fire doesn't NOT accrue to the safety of having a gun in all these studies. 3) Counting suicides is idiotic. Japan has no guns and double the suicide rate. to properly count suicides, would require control for known situations where no gun is present. That may result in a valid counting of 5 to 10% of suicides as due to the presence of a gun at home. One cannot just compare suicide rates of US homes with guns to suicide rates of homes without guns. Why? Because some people probably purchase guns for the propose of suicide. That should not count. If the person does that they are simply picking an effective inexpensive cheap way out and would fall back to the next easiest if they could not get a gun. there is NOT present in the suicide numbers the valid number that can be "blamed" on gun ownership: which is where the gun is UNUSUALLY conducive to suicide. Obviously there are situations where that is the case, but none of the studies address that to put a number on it. For all we know less than 10% of suicide by gun are attributable to the ease of use and presence of a gun or would not occur otherwise with no gun. 4) Less clear but certainly NOT successfully addressed by these studeis are other correlative probable that cant be used to show causality of legal gun equals more danger. Environmental factors in terms of crime in a neighborhood are not well controlled. Also a woman under protective order due to an abusive spouse or boyfriend I already at risk for much higher mortality or injury. So without a gun for self protection they may have 10x the risk of being harmed as the general population of women, but with a gun only have 5x the chance. Thatis exactly a type of person who buys a gun, attains more safety because of the ownership, but is counted in these studies as accruing to less safety from gun ownership! The gun reduced their risk but their risk is already elevated.

 

[arnisador]

I really, really, can't see the flaw due to the bright turquoise text

I changed it for you. But also, I provided a link. Just because two sides disagree doesn't mean that both are equally right. This looks like a well-done study to me--but if you are going to dismiss it because of the highlighting color, well, that is about the level of analysis I've come to expect from those defending the guns-everywhere position.

As to the other bit - I would not presume to do your maths for you. You already looked at the numbers - going over them again won't help me change your mind.

It might. I'm just asking that you show me how to get 1 in a million out of your source. There may be a way to view it that generates that number, but I can't see it. I'm not being facetious. I'm asking you to defend your source. Isn't that the right way to proceed? Is that not what you're asking for? Facts?

What does matter to me is pragmatism and doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do rather than the most expedient or popular.

Changing gun laws is popular, according to polls, but not expedient due to the NRA's lobbying influence. Money talks in politics here in a big, big way.

 

[billc]

5)No differentiation in the survey between lawful gun owners and criminals in possession, illegally, of guns. This was the big card they palmed that clearly shows their intent as it isn't addressed at all. They pay lip service later to some of the other factors they didn't control for, Location, Socio-Economic status etc. but they very carefully do not mention this.

...

 

[arnisador]

Hmmm...those with insulin in their homes were more likely to die of causes of diabetes...hmmm...

You'll note that the second link explicitly addresses risks vs. benefits. Insulin is used after a diagnosis--but the argument is that obtaining a gun is prophylactic. It turns out that that's a mixed bag.

 

[Tgace]

News flash! People with bathtubs in their homes are 243536% more likely to die by falling in the bathtub!!

Story at 11!!

 

[billc]

4) The study admit's for itself "To produce more reliable estimates, Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were over-sampled in this survey. Considering what percentage of African- Americans (approximately 84% in the 1990 census) live in cities, you have now over-sampled urban areas. There are many more legal guns per capita in Rural areas. Which leads us to the next point.

...

 

[arnisador]

A look at arnisadors study...

A webforum post? That's a new low in sourcing even for you. Will you next use one of your own posts here on MT as a source?

The "gangbanger" point is not a valid criticism of the study, which only tried to show what is associated with a gun in the home, not why it's in the home. This criticizes something the study was not about. It was a nonjudgmental look at the risks of their being a gun in the home. It also wasn't looking at brandishment because this study only looked at risks, not benefits. Science doesn't proceed by covering the whole question all at once: It proceeds by steps. This was one specific study. For risks vs. rewards, try the other study I cited in that post.

This is a statistical literacy problem: A study sets out to consider some very specific question. It does so. That doesn't completely address the policy issues, so someone trashes it on something it never tried to address. As one of the other posters at your 'source' said: "And they draw no conclusions about the desirability or otherwise of firearms ownership: they point out that their study couldn't assess whether the benefits of having a firearm in the home outweigh the risks." Not every study can address everything--indeed, that wouldn't be desirable. The argument is not based on a single study--it's based on reviews of many such studies. This is Hemenway's key contribution, which relies on many more specific studies like this that address more narrow questions.

 

[arnisador]

News flash! People with bathtubs in their homes are 243536% more likely to die by falling in the bathtub!!

Wouldn't that lead someone to ask about the risks vs. rewards? As much as gun lovers love guns, evidence that you gain more than you lose, on average, by having a gun in the house is simply not there.

 

[billc]

These are thoughts on the study from people who ask simple questions and make points that easily point to flaws in your data...deal with it...

You take already unreliable 20 year old data, from when the murder rate from gang violence was at it's peak, over-sample ethnic minorities under 35 involved in the gangs, then don't differentiate between lawful gun owners and criminals and tally it up. Amazing! guns in the home are the cause of violence!

 

[arnisador]

Other studies using different methodology--surveying gun owners, for example--reach the same general conclusion. Guns are a clear risk, any way you look at it.

 

[Big Don]

Other studies using different methodology--surveying gun owners, for example--reach the same general conclusion. Guns are a clear risk, any way you look at it.

They are, if your head is far enough up your ***

 

[Tgace]

Scientists discover that homes with kitchen knives in them are 34456% more likely to result in stabbings and injury with kitchen knives!!!

News at 11!!!

 

[billc]

Who are these people...

Linda L. Dahlberg, Ph.D., is the associate director for science in the Division of Violence Prevention at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In her current position, Dr. Dahlberg serves as one of the senior advisers on matters of science and policy to the director of the Division of Violence Prevention. She also coordinates international research and programmatic activities for the division and serves as a subject matter expert and consultant on a number of international scientific planning committees and advisory boards. In other words if this crap isn't true there is no reason for any of her jobs. Robin M. Ikeda, MD, MPH, is the Deputy Director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Director for Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health. In this position, she is responsible for providing guidance and leadership to the CDC′s scientific and programmatic portfolios. She previously served as Acting Director for the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) from January to November 2010, while also serving as Deputy Director. Originally a Clinton Appointee, then promoted under Obama, same reasons as above for Dr. Dahlberg apply. Marcie-jo Kresnow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Publications: 35 | Citations: 434 Fields: Psychiatry & Psychology, Pharmacology, Immunology Collaborated with 79 co-authors from 1994 to 2011 | Cited by 1270 authors A little harder to get your arms around this one, but her studies are almost exclusively about backing up Left leaning political causes. Another CDC hack. Everyone here has a huge financial stake in the findings, clear, identifiable bias.

 

[arnisador]

A financial stake? Govt. employees? That's ridiculous. That web forum is as unreliable as this one for political analysis.

 

[Sukerkin]

but if you are going to dismiss it because of the highlighting color, well, that is about the level of analysis I've come to expect from those defending the guns-everywhere position.

I was trying to keep it light and funny in terms of argument whilst keeping the actual discourse serious and grounded.

 

[Tgace]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/#

 

[arnisador]

I was trying to keep it light and funny in terms of argument whilst keeping the actual discourse serious and grounded.

I might suggest that following the link would've gone further w.r.t. keeping the actual discourse serious.

Speaking of which, I'm serious about the CNN article you posted. Are you just dropping posts here, or will you respond? I can't imagine what else "keeping the actual discourse serious" could mean than some back-and-forth about claims that is based on facts. I don't see how the article you posted arrived at its conclusions. I'm looking for you to expand on your source or grant that it is questionable.

 

[arnisador]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/cnn-a...among-children-are-literally-1-in-a-million/#

Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about--I can't get odds of one in a million out of that. I get odds closer to one in a hundred thousand--an order of magnitude more likely. How is the figure of one in a million reached?

 

[Sukerkin]

I might suggest that following the link would've gone further w.r.t. keeping the actual discourse serious.

Speaking of which, I'm serious about the CNN article you posted. Are you just dropping posts here, or will you respond? I can't imagine what else "keeping the actual discourse serious" could mean than some back-and-forth about claims that is based on facts. I don't see how the article you posted arrived at its conclusions. I'm looking for you to expand on your source or grant that it is questionable.

Mate, enough already. My wife is not two months dead so cut me some slack, ey? You are this close to going on Ignore right now.

 

[arnisador]

You are this close to going on Ignore right now.

Have it your way. But dropping false statistics in a thread is now a running theme with you. If you want to play peacemaker, you might find it works better if you stay neutral. If not, then in the words of America's greatest living philosopher, Arnold Schwarzenegger: "If you choose to bluff, you must be prepared to have your bluff called."

You made a point. I made a counterpoint. The ball is in your court.