Just remember:
In 1993, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published an article by Arthur Kellerman and colleagues, “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home,” which presented the results of research funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide. The article concluded that rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Kellerman was affiliated at the time with the department of internal medicine at the University of Tennessee. He went on to positions at Emory University, and he currently holds the Paul O’Neill Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at the RAND Corporation.Why cut the research if the facts actually did show that guns in the home made your family safer?
The 1993 NEJM article received considerable media attention, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) responded by campaigning for the elimination of the center that had funded the study, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention. The center itself survived, but Congress included language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill (PDF, 2.4MB) for Fiscal Year 1997 that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Referred to as the Dickey amendment after its author, former U.S. House Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), this language did not explicitly ban research on gun violence. However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”
"Why cut the research if the facts actually did show that guns in the home made your family safer?"
ReplyDeleteBecause since Kellerman's research concluded there is a causational relationship, when there isn't even a correlation. Obviously a big waste of time and money.
Actually there is a huge OR, highly significant. And in fact, ignorant morons state over and over that "correlation isn't causation" as if that made them look smart or something. In fact, it's nothing more and nothing less than a highly plausible causative factor.
DeleteOnly spin doctors of your caliber, excuse the pun, deny this. For everyone else it's a matter of how bad a gun in the home is, not whether it is bad or not.
DeleteHow can I deny math. Math works the same every time. I showed you the math, I showed you the source of data, but I'm the one who is denying?
DeletePOed Lib, we haven't sparred before on this, would you like to? Have you read some of my posts on this topic? Perhaps you can do better than Mike. In the end he basically said (paraphrased) that I'm better at math than him so I must be using math tricks to deceive him since he doesn't believe the conclusion.
TS: Your comments indicate that you are just as ignorant of research facts as is Greg. Here is the exact money quote from Kellermann (1993): "After matching for four characteristics and controlling for the effects of five more, we found that the presence of one or more firearms in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).
DeleteYou are simply a liar, plain and simple There is NO CLAIM of CAUSAL relationship in that quote, single or multiple. The operative word is ASSOCIATION.
Either you are stupid or ignorant, and you are probably both. Learn to read, and learn some epidemiology.
"There is NO CLAIM of CAUSAL relationship in that quote, single or multiple. The operative word is ASSOCIATION."
DeleteThen tell me O great statistical and epidemiological guru, why do you say absolutely nothing when those in favor stricter gun laws suggest that there is such a relationship?
I
Because it is an association, which is a partial cause. Causation begins by showing association/correlation, and then moves on to show the persistence of the relationship even when other factors are taken into account. Even though Kellermann, now Dean of the US Military Medical School, did not say "causal" I say that his association shows that 1) it is related 2) other factors have been taken into account and the relationship persists so 3) there is a partial causal component present.
DeleteSmall minds require exclusive causes. Scientists understand the complexity of the world.
TS has actually taken us through the numbers and calculations. PO, all you do is throw mud and make claims. But at least you understand the error of gun control. Gun control asserts that there is one cause and one solution, and gun control freaks push their one answer at every opportunity.
DeletePOed Lib: “You are simply a liar, plain and simple There is NO CLAIM of CAUSAL relationship in that quote, single or multiple”
DeleteOf course there is a claim of causation in this quote below… by you:
POed Lib: “In fact, it's nothing more and nothing less than a highly plausible causative factor.”
POed Lib: “Causation begins by showing association/correlation, and then moves on to show the persistence of the relationship even when other factors are taken into account.”
You’re absolutely right. The problem is he skipped that first part. There is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates, but he went on to an extensive case study controlling for other factors anyway. That is what makes it a waste of money. If it’s your money or Bloomberg’s money, spend away (though I will spend my time debunking)- but don’t spend my money on it.
So wouldn’t you say that Kellerman’s conclusion is easily tested by looking at the state’s gun ownership rate and seeing if the state’s murder rate goes up as gun ownership goes up?
POed Lib: “Since I know something about epidemiology and medical biostats, and you do not, why would you know if I was right or not? You don't know anything about research, causal logic, epidemiology, power analysis, generalized linear models, structural equation models, or really anything of value.”
Good, I am glad you are stating that you won’t be claiming ignorance in this discussion.
YOu are obviously ignorant. There is a large, significant and entirely preserved association. The OR is 2.7. That's large
DeleteThe issue is not the state's murder rate. The issue is that of the study.
DeleteTS: YOu don't seem to understand that an association as stated in the part I quoted IS a correlation, except with categorical variables. Do you understand this? Obviously not. And Greg, no, TS has done nothing with the numbers
DeletePOed Lib, look beyond Kellerman now and see if there is data to support his conclusion. I have done something with the numbers. I mined the FBI data for murder rates and compared them to LCAV data for state gun ownership rate, and I found zero correlation. That is using every murder that happened in the whole country- not just two counties as Kellerman did. Below are source data links. Don’t trust me, do the calculations yourself and let’s discuss your results:
Deletehttp://www.lcav.org/Gun_Laws_Matter/Gun_Laws_Matter_Chart.pdf
http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm
Or, trust me and I’ll make it even easier for you. Here is a table of source data. I would certainly spot check it so that we can agree this is good data to use. Do a correlation calculation on this data set and tell me if it supports Kellerman’s “significant association”?
State / LCAV Gun Ownership / 2012 Murder
AK 60.6 4.1
AL 57.2 7.1
AR 58.3 5.9
AZ 36.2 5.5
CA 19.5 5
CO 34.5 3.1
CT 16.2 4.1
DE 26.7 6.2
FL 26 5.2
GA 41 5.9
HI 9.7 2.1
IA 44 1.5
ID 56.8 1.8
IL 19.7 5.8
IN 39 4.7
KS 43.7 2.9
KY 48 4.5
LA 45.6 10.8
MA 22.1 1.8
MD 12.8 6.3
ME 41.1 1.9
MI 40.3 7
MN 44.7 1.8
MO 45.4 6.5
MS 54.3 7.4
MT 61.4 2.7
NC 40.8 4.9
ND 54.3 4
NE 42.1 2.9
NH 30.5 1.1
NJ 11.3 4.4
NM 39.6 5.6
NV 31.5 4.5
NY 18.1 3.5
OH 32.1 4.3
OK 44.6 5.7
OR 39.8 2.4
PA 36.5 5.4
RI 13.3 3.2
SC 45 6.9
SD 59.9 3
TN 46.4 6
TX 35.9 4.4
UT 45.3 1.8
VA 35.9 3.8
VT 45.5 1.3
WA 36.2 3
WI 44.3 3
WV 57.9 3.9
WY 62.8 2.4
This has exactly NOTHING to do with the study. What is your point? Anyone can compute a correlation. It takes an intelligent person to understand the relationship. Your example is TOTALLY irrelevant to Kellermann's point. He did a case-control study. You control for NONE of his variables.
DeleteTS: Your inability to read and understand Kellermann is from the bottom to the top. He first of all used 3 locations, not 2. Second, he looked at the data to understand the full picture. The "logic" of your approach makes no sense. It's like looking at car fatalities, on the one hand comparing driver skills, experience level and 5 other variables at a micro level (Kellermann like) vs comparing age of driver and fatality at a state level (TS comparison). The two are not comparable.
DeleteWhat do you mean it has nothing to do with the study? You guys are highlighting Kellerman’s conclusion about household gun ownership relating to murder rates. The above table is household gun ownership and murder rates. But it doesn’t support Kellerman’s conclusion. There is ZERO correlation
DeletePOed Lib: “Anyone can compute a correlation.”
Yes! Exactly. I’ve made that point numerous times on this blog when Mike accuses me of being a math guru who can spin numbers, and I explain how a correlation calculation is straight up math and is going to come up with the same answer every time. I even showed him how to do it himself. A case study is not simple math, and is subject to manipulation. As I explain before, and you did not address, one would first see if there is a correlation in the numbers above and then move on to a detailed case study (with a much smaller sample) isolating different variables. In fact, that is exactly what YOU said:
POed Lib: “Causation begins by showing association/correlation, and then moves on to show the persistence of the relationship even when other factors are taken into account.”
So did you run a correlation calculation on the numbers above? What did you get? Because this is where I lose Mike. He just doesn’t believe me, so it would be nice to have someone who supports gun control at least agreeing with the basic math I have shown. How do you reconcile your above statement with the data I provided?
POed Lib: “Your inability to read and understand Kellermann is from the bottom to the top. He first of all used 3 locations, not 2”
That could be. I’m going off of memory. But does my point change when it is three counties vs. two?
PO, Kellermann's methods are questionable, since he takes small samples and claims that they apply to all gun owners. TS's numbers show that there's no correlation between gun laws and homicide rates. If strict gun laws don't equate to lower numbers of murders, what's the point?
DeleteFor one thing, no one but TS can follow his gibberish. And for another, we were talking about rates of gun ownership vs. murder rates, not gun laws vs.murders rates.
DeleteThe above numbers are for gun ownership rates. I've run the numbers vs. Brady scores as well and that also comes out with zero correlation.
DeleteSince you no nothing about the area, of course you come up with meaningless bullshit crap. Your numbers take nothing relevant into account. All that cordite has rotted whatever intelligence might have originally been present. Gun owners have the intellience of whatever gun they are shooting - 32 caliber, IQ = 32.
DeleteThe point of Kellermann's study is that the presence of a gun makes it more likely, almost 3 times, that you be murdered. Your numbers say nothing NOTHINg about that question. But you are too stupid to understand the difference.
DeletePut another way, your numbers bear on the question "Does the number of guns increase murder rates, when comparing 1, 2, 3?" Of course, that is a stupid question. The real issue is "0 guns or 1ormore? Which is safer?" The answer is "0 guns".
DeleteNo, no, POed, the figures I provided are for percentage of households with at least one gun. These are figures provided by LCAV, a gun control group. They used it to calculate the correlation between gun ownership, and death by gun. I substituted "gun deaths" for murder rates and saw there is no correlation. Now that we've cleared up that misconception, can you tell me what correlation you calculated in these numbers? And how is that not relevant to the Kellerman case study which concluded a relationship with household gun ownership and murder? That is exactly what I looked at.
DeleteTell me, if a study came out funded by the Koch brothers, and it was a case study of three locations around the world, and the study claimed there is no climate change- would you believe it, or the comprehensive global data which contradicts it? As I said, Kellerman conducted a case study on a small subset of data where there was no correlation. As you said earlier, the process is to first see if there is a correlation AND THEN move on to a case study where you can control for other variables to see if there is still a relationship. You said that, and I agree with that. But that's not what happened here. Instead they looked at uncorrelated data and tried to make a correlation in a case study- and case studies are subject to manipulation because there are many ways to skin a cat.
Want more proof? Look at how what I did is NEVER done by a group advocating for gun control (a comparison of gun laws, or gun ownership to murder or violent crime). Instead they use my same methods, but they do it for "gun deaths" instead of murder rates. Or they do a case study with a couple hundred murders where they control for other variables (subject to manipulation) to make it seem like there is a correlation/causation. They never show the correlation on comprehensive data. Go on, check for yourself. You won't find it.
DeleteMikeb, I follow TS's numbers and calculations just fine. As always, you believe that everyone is like you.
DeletePO, when you're ready to offer some calculations, rather than strenuous assertions, let us know.
Here's a calculation for ya. If nearly 70% of murders are done with guns, how in the world can gun availability NOT be a factor in murder rates? How can fewer guns NOT result in fewer murders?
DeleteTS can produce lists of indecipherable numbers from here to the moon and you can insist that you follow his argument, but you can't get around my simple questions, can you?
" They never show the correlation on comprehensive data. Go on, check for yourself. You won't find it."
DeleteThat's because your methods are totally irrelevant. You are showing that in a large area there is no relationship. I'd be surprised if you could show ANY relationship with that kind of information. It's absolutely irrelevant.
MikeB: “Here's a calculation for ya. If nearly 70% of murders are done with guns, how in the world can gun availability NOT be a factor in murder rates? How can fewer guns NOT result in fewer murders?”
DeleteI’ve explained to you the flaw in this thinking before. One, a tiny percentage of the guns out there ends up being used in murder. The people who are wanting to murder people have guns whether or not the rest of the population does, and whether or not there are a bunch of meaningless gun control laws in place. The gangbangers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC have guns even if the good people around them don’t. The second point you overlook is that guns are also used for good- to prevent murder, both actively and passively. I know you stick to the idea that “guns do more bad than good” but it is that assumption you are making that prevents you from seeing that the data does not support it. Your logic is circular. You make an assumption which you state as fact therefore nothing is allowed to disprove it. Mike, if guns we doing more bad than good, we would see more bad where there are more guns. I just showed you the data that shows that is not true.
POed Lib: “That's because your methods are totally irrelevant. You are showing that in a large area there is no relationship. I'd be surprised if you could show ANY relationship with that kind of information. It's absolutely irrelevant.”
Are you saying that the century old statistical practice of correlation calculation is irrelevant? Why do they still teach it in school then? These types of calculations give two possible answers: “no”, and “maybe”. It absolutely can be used to determine that two things are unrelated. Where there is a correlation, the answer is “maybe” and further study is needed to determine a relationship beyond that. As I keep bring up, YOU said that earlier in our conversation. I have broken your statement up into two parts below :
1) “Causation begins by showing association/correlation…”
2) “…and then moves on to show the persistence of the relationship even when other factors are taken into account.”
What I keep saying that that step 1 is not true, but Kellerman moved on to step 2 anyway, never even mention step 1 in his study. You are reverting on what you said, by claiming step one is actually worthless- that the two answers it gives are “maybe” and “maybe”. Of course that is not true. You keep telling me that I am not taking other factors into account- but that’s step 2. What about step 1? You skipped step 1!
And if you click on that LCAV link I posted (the source of the household gun ownership statistic), you’ll see that they used the exact same methods I just used. The only difference is that instead of using murder rates, they used “gun death” (a combination of murder using a gun, suicide using a gun, accidental death with a gun, and justifiable homicide with a gun- while not counting any deaths that don’t occur with a gun). LCAV and The Brady Campaign both tout this study heavily. So to be clear, you are saying what they are doing is “absolutely irrelevant”, correct?
POed Lib, The other thing you are missing is the possibility of reverse causation. This ties into what I just explained to Mike when he says 70% of murder are committed using guns. The people who are likely to commit murder (drug dealers, gang bangers, organized criminals) do in fact own guns. They own guns whether or not the good people around them do, and, big surprise, they own guns even when the law says they are not supposed to. These people are also at a much higher risk of being murdered themselves than the rest of the population. You’re not disputing that, are you? So it is quite plausible that you can do a case study of murder victims and see that they were more likely to own a gun than the general population. This is why it is important to complete BOTH the steps you said. Showing a correlation at step 2 without step 1, can be explained as a textbook case of reverse causation. People more likely to be murdered are more likely to have guns (including good people who are legitimately threatened, so they went out and got a gun for protection). But that does not mean that introducing a gun to a normal stable home situation increases the risk of murder, and that bears out in the figures I showed you. The states with higher gun ownership, DO NOT have higher murder rates. This is because the bulk of gun owners are not engaged in high risk for murder activities (the real factors: drug use, gang affiliation, poverty, etc.).
DeletePOed Lib: “That's because your methods are totally irrelevant.”
Just to reiterate, when I said you should look for a comprehensive correlation studies from gun control groups, you will find the exact methods I am using. It is just they do it for “gun deaths” and NEVER murder rates. If you are calling what I did “irrelevant”, then so is all of their studies. Right?
You are obviously a very stupid person, TS. He showed a VERY STRONG ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS A CORRELATION. The OR of 2.7 IS a strong association. Jeeeeeezus, jeeeezus, jeeezzus, FIGGER IT FUCKING OUT!
DeleteAnd a careful reading of the paper shows the univariate association of 1.6 (1.2-2.2). If you would stop foaming at the mouth, you might find it - p 1088 near bottom of table. This is the step 1 value. What has happened is that the 1.6 OR becomes 2.7 after adjusting for other variables.
DeleteYou're right, TS, you have explained the "flaw" in my thinking before. And it's still an attempt to baffle us with bullshit.
Delete"The people who are wanting to murder people have guns whether or not the rest of the population does, and whether or not there are a bunch of meaningless gun control laws in place. The gangbangers in Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC have guns even if the good people around them don’t."
Does that really make sense to you? To me it's a piss poor attempt at obfuscation and avoidance.
And then you go into all the good guns do, which according to you I overlook.
As you should well know, I don't "overlook" it I just don't accept the bizarre numbers some of your surveys come up with, And you wouldn't either if you were consistent. These estimates are based on the simple word of gun owners, in many cases, self-aggrandizing gun owners bragging about their exploits, as opposed to evidence and proof.
Forget the surveys, Mike. We can just look at the violent crime and murder rate and compare it to gun ownership to see that gun are not doing more harm than good. This is real data where we don’t have to rely on phone surveys.
DeleteMike, you’ll notice that in my discussions with POed Lib, he/she has not challenged my calculation or the source of the data. Instead he/she just says it is “irrelevant” and that a 21 year old case study using data from three counties trumps current and comprehensive data. I have directly asked POed Lib what he/she gets when running the numbers, and I get a dodge for an answer (“it doesn’t matter”). That should tell you something. I bring this up, because you keep insisting that I am spinning the math and that the data of gun ownership (or strength of gun laws) to murder rates MUST show a correlation. You’ve never told me that it doesn’t matter. Yet there is no published gun control study that shows it, and I can’t get a gun control advocate self-proclaimed to be knowledgeable in statistics (be it POed Lib or Baldr) to show it either. If I am spinning the math, why I am so eager to get people to challenge it- even showing you a step by step process to do it yourself?
POed Lib, the 1.6 OR is in direct contradiction with much more current and comprehensive data. What mental processes do you go through when two things are contradictory? Do you try to figure it out for yourself? Stop talking about Kellerman for a second and address the numbers I showed you. You keep saying it is irrelevant, but you won’t say why, and you won’t answer how this calculation is part of the process you outlined earlier. And now you are even telling me that a non-adjusted relationship is of importance (but you’re saying that 21 year old data from three counties is more relevant than comprehensive data from today).
One more time, is there or is there not a correlation in the numbers I showed you? Even if you believe it is irrelevant, you should be able to answer the question. If you don’t answer the question, it would seem that you believe the lack of correlation is relevant which is why you are dodging it.
TS: It doesn't matter about your numbers. Your numbers have nothing to do with the question that Kellermann is asking. And, no, they are not contradictory. Kellermann is asking about actual specific characteristics. You are simply not. Your information is irrelevant, but you aren't able to understand that.
DeleteSo again, you can't answer the question about whether or not the state murder rates as published by the FBI is correlated with the household gun ownership survey presented by LCAV. Forget about whether or not you think is has something to do with Kellerman, just answer the question. I think you know the answer, and you believe it is very much relevant in terms of gun policy, which would explain why you won't answer.
DeleteBut still, I find it amusing that you insist looking at this data has nothing to do with Kellerman's conclusion. They are both gun ownership to murder rates, except what I'm talking about is more current, and a much larger scale.
The state data answer a question, but it is a stupid question only of interest to gun wacks.
DeleteAnd, no, the state data have NOTHING to do with Kellermann's question, which has to do with individual-level information.
DeleteIf you really believe this has nothing to do with Kellermann, fine, let’s move on.
DeleteJust answer this question: Is the state data on household gun ownership correlated to the state’s murder rate? You say it’s a stupid question, but it is the same question gun control groups ask all the time, except they ask it about “gun deaths” instead of murder. They ask, “are there more deaths by gun where there are more guns?” which is a pretty stupid question if you ask me.
Laci, you again manage to mix your data, a video about safe storage and an inaccurate study about homicide. And of course we recently discussed a study specifically ordered through executive action by the President, though it's critiqued by gun control advocates in the same manner as we critique Kellerman.
ReplyDeleteWhen you cite Kellermann, you show exactly why this subject doesn't deserve government funding.
ReplyDeleteGunHugging Firearm Fondlers can ignore all the data ever cited because these incidents and the 30,000+ deaths by guns every year in America happens to other people not them.
ReplyDeleteSince, as you say, it happens to other people and not to us, why are you desperate to punish us?
DeleteProper gun control is not a punishment. You should stop saying that.
DeletePrison is a punishment. Your idea of "proper gun control" adds a lot of felonies around gun ownership.
DeleteDo let us know when people start filling up the prisons for owning assault weapons. They can share cells with all those incarcerated because the wind blew open their jackets and exposed their concealed weapons.
DeleteJust stop saying you don’t support throwing victimless offenders of gun crimes in prison when you also make sarcastic statements like this. Stop already. These are crimes as defined by law. There is prison terms set by these laws, and people do get convicted of these crimes.
DeleteNo they're not, TS, at least not in significant enough numbers to support your hysterical obsession with these laws.
DeleteSo when you say you don't support sending these type of gun owners to jail, you really mean you don’t support send them to jail in “significant enough numbers”. Making examples out of a few second amendment zealots here and there is perfectly fine.
DeletePlease provide the links to the "few second amendment zealots" who've been persecuted in this way.
DeleteI already mentioned Brian Aitken, and I don't even think he was some kind of second amendment zealot.
DeleteNo, he wasn't a "second amendment zealot" and he wasn't an innocent victim of a bad law either. You got nothin', in other words.
DeleteAt the risk of coming across as crass . . . many of the deaths cited in firearms statistics are suicides. While I do not condone suicide, I do not think a legal solution is the answer - especially if states are considering physician assisted suicide legislation. So a Dr. can kill you but you can't/shouldn't do the deed yourself?
ReplyDeleteAlso, how do you get around the above scenario (or domestic violence etc. etc.) if the person has a firearm in his/her domicile as part of his/her job namely a cop. Proper training & storage? Is that not what people say about civilian ownership of firearms? Kids will on rare occasions kill themselves w/ guns. That does not mean we take everyone's guns away. Our cops & police have weapons related accidents quite frequently. Yet they keep there's?
Consider too that suicides & accidental discharges can happen w/ the simplest of firearms. Meaning, mere gun ownership presents this problem. Grandpa's single shot shotgun is just as capable here as a $3,000 AR.
Doctor assisted suicide has nothing to do with the distraught person who blows his brains out during a temporary depression. The number of suicides of the former type are few while those of the latter type are many. That's why proper gun control, including safe storage in the home is important.
DeleteSafe storage should be obligatory.
David, physician assisted suicide, while a disturbing subject is quite a bit different than someone suffering depression and making the choice during one of their low times. An Army Chaplain of my acquaintance often commented when speaking on the subject of suicide referred to it as a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
DeleteMy personal belief is that everyone bears at least a karmic responsibility to not turn this permanent solution into something akin to what to have for breakfast. The act of attempted suicide has been decriminalized pretty much nationwide in order to facilitate people seeking treatment to get help.
I'm also very concerned though with recent attempts to couple gun rights or rather the loss of them to those seeking such treatment. I believe that in doing so, it will result in fewer people seeking the treatment they need.
David,
DeleteYou certainly met the "crass" category. By ignoring the almost 12,00 gun murders and the rare (?) 300 children that are "accidentally"(?) killed every year. There are 30,000 gun shot deaths a year and thousands could be prevented. Suicide by gun shot, is a gun shot death. Since both most gun suicides and most gun murders are spur (passion) of the moment events, then gun availability, or the lack of it, becomes critical in saving lives.
Mikeb, how would safe storage prevent most suicides? Do you imagine that depression makes a person forget the combination to the safe?
DeleteIn some cases, just the small barrier of having to open up the safe might help a depressed person think twice about it, but more importantly, family members who don't have the combination will have to resort to razor blades or pills, methods that are less likely to succeed.
DeleteAre you serious Mike? Is someone going to check up to see if everybody is safely storing their firearms? I think you freely admit that mere gun ownership presents this problem. If people want to kill themselves they will. I balk at calling it a right, but it seems draconian to use potential suicides as an argument for total disarmament (disarmament being necessary as the simplest of guns can go this job).
DeleteAnonymous, I am not ignoring the rest of the gun deaths in America. I am staying on topic as the video above is about guns in the home being somehow used on their occcupants - not all gun related deaths in a America. Many of the people who die from a gun shot are oftentimes part of a gang or otherwise engaged in illegal activity.
In other words, you know that "safe storage" laws won't do any good.
DeleteDavid, you must be new around here. I usually lose patience when people say stupid shit like this, but I'll try to stay calm with you.
Delete"it seems draconian to use potential suicides as an argument for total disarmament"
I don't call for "total disarmament."
About checking "to see if everybody is safely storing their firearms," no I don't suggest that. I suggest a safe storage requirement which would be followed by millions of gun owners, being law-abiding folks, and ignored by many millions more. The result would be an immediate lessening in suicides and accidental shootings as well as gun theft.
I forgot to comment on your other inanity: "If people want to kill themselves they will." That's so simplistic that it's just ridiculous. Of the nearly 20,000 suicides each year, most of them are not the determined types that will go to any lengths to end their lives. They act in a moment of despair and choose a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Most suicide attempt survivors NEVER try it again. This is why limiting gun availability is so important, since the gun is the most efficient way to do it.
DeleteExcept that some 30,000 Japanese kill themselves every year without guns.
DeleteGreg, I'd appreciate it if you don't bring up Japan ever again unless it's part of the post. Your repetition is becoming just too much. I've told you over and over again that Japan has a long history of honorable suicide and that if they had the gun availability that we have there'd be many more suicides there.
DeleteJapan doesn't have our history of gang violence, but you're happy to compare our murder rate to theirs.
DeleteSuicide has not been decriminalized, but authorities now arrest and send the accused for treatment instead of jail. The State forces that treatment as the punishment for breaking the law, suicide is against the law.
DeleteOn one hand you harp about biased sources used by Mike for facts and figures, then even when he uses the sources you claim are acceptable you blast those sources when the facts prove your "side" wrong. Hypocrites have nothing but hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI don't recall any of us saying that Kellermann was an acceptable source. In fact, we've always said that his work was sloppy and his data poorly analyzed.
DeleteYes Anon, even Kellerman had to redo his math and adjust his claims downward from the 43 times that is still bandied about the blogs to I believe its 3 times. When shown the new figures, the response becomes, well, its still more.
DeleteIn the most recent study released which was ordered by the President, and which asserted that defensive gun uses happened at least as often as criminal ones, Mike actually used credible data such as the FBI and the CDC to argue against the findings of the report. A laudable effort, though ironically, he has also argued that data from the CDC is inaccurate. Ironic though it may be, at least when both sides debate using the same credible data, there is a useful exchange.
Greg, you're an arrogant little man to talk about Kellerman that way. He's a well respected expert in his field, who are you? Like petty bullies everywhere, you get like that when someone presents facts that you don't like.
DeleteSince you know nothing about epidemiology, statistical analysis, causal reasoning, or really anything except guns, your opinion about sloppy research is the intellectual equivalent of a pig having an opinion about opera.
DeletePO, you're an arrogant little shit who never offers anything other than insults and cursing. Oh, and when it comes to opera, I prefer German and French to Italian.
DeleteMikeb, bullies violate the rights of others. I defend those rights. When it comes to Kellermann, I accept the criticisms made by experts.
What expert? Epidemiologists ROUTINELY consider Kellerman to be an excellent scientist. That is why, today, he is the Dean of the US Military Medical School while you sit in your basement fondling your glock. Pathetic losers bitch and moan, Kellerman is now in a position where he can influence a hell of a lot of people.
DeleteSince any figures Mike uses you guys call biased, then it's clear you are the biased ones and not worth discussing figures with.
DeleteDid I say Kellermann? Thought not, but thanks for the lies.
DeleteNext lie.
"Since any figures Mike uses you guys call biased, then it's clear you are the biased ones and not worth discussing figures with."
DeleteSo you aren't going to debate anything involving numbers and statistics from now on? That of course is entirely up to you, though it might be best.
Not at all, but your cry that all statistics, facts, and surveys Mike presents is bogus just because you disagree with the findings, is bullshit and I will say so.
DeleteAnon, when I disagree with data that mike posts, I tend to offer supporting data to back up my statements. I don't just say its wrong cause I don't like it. Or unlike some here that when their data is disproved jump immediately to accusations that because you don't agree with a study, you must approve of however many people dying.
DeleteIn fact, Mike actually took on a debate recently about a recent study ordered by the president which supported gun rights advocates' contention that there are numerous defensive gun uses.
Mike actually used credible data to debate the findings. He didn't use bogus studies from the VPC, and he didn't resort to the denial techniques I mentioned above.
Just like above, did I say Kellerman? No. Just lies to support your false statements. Next lie.
DeleteWhat percentage of figures that Mike uses do you object to? You have one instance here you agreed with.
I don't believe I mentioned Kellerman either Anon. Let me see if I'm understanding you, I bring up an example of Mike engaged in a reasonable debate and you're wanting me to quantify my data? I didn't say I agreed with his assertion, I just used that as an example or a reasonable discourse.
Delete"ssgmarkcr April 17, 2014 at 1:11 PM
DeleteYes Anon, even Kellerman had to redo his math"
I guess that's not you bringing up Kellerman?
Next lie
If you would look at the whole comment you would see that I mentioned two studies in there. Kellerman's and a more recent one. You started debating on the other one, while you made comments denying you were referring to Kellerman.
DeleteShow me where I debated on any study in particular. I mentioned no study in particular. You said you did not mention Kellermann, but you did. You said I mentioned a particular study, I did not. See where I get the "you guys are liars" proof from?
DeleteYou losers are never more pathetic than when you bitch and moan and scream in pain whenever Kellerman's name is even whispered. You have lost this argument. Research about guns and the evil that they do is going to go on. Guns in the hands of a person in your own house is the most dangerous place they can be, and Kellerman has shown that over and over again. Your pathetic squirming is pretty funny, though. If Kellerman was so wrong, why does he make you so nervous? He makes you nervous because you know that he is right - guns are dangerous.
ReplyDeleteIt's really fun to watch, though. You big brave gunsucks, afraid of a little epidemiological research and a partial causative factor!! Hysterical.
There's a difference between being nervous and knowing when something is wrong. You being wrong so often has clouded your judgement on that matter.
DeleteSince I know something about epidemiology and medical biostats, and you do not, why would you know if I was right or not? You don't know anything about research, causal logic, epidemiology, power analysis, generalized linear models, structural equation models, or really anything of value.
DeleteSomebody's read the Wikipedia article on statistics.
DeleteLib, when you call your audience names and say how stupid they are, while pushing how much of an expert you are, you come off sounding a lot like Rush Limbaugh. That results in people not taking you seriously.
DeleteYour avowed area of expertise is data analysis, mine runs more to shooting and breaking things, and passing these skills on to others. Some of your comments do intrigue me, but the abuse gets tiring, much like the way I feel about Limbaugh.
My 150 publications in the peer-reviewed literature say that you are a chump.
DeletePO, that's a bold claim. How about backing it up? You can look up what I've written. I post under my own name. My guess is that you're Jadegold, and if so, I do know your name, but why not be brave and show us what you claim to have written?
DeleteThat's bold talk for an anonymous commenter, PO. I post under my own name. You can look up my publications. Given the way you talk, I suspect you're Jadegold, but who knows? How about telling us how to find these articles so we can verify your claim?
DeleteThe issue is that gunsucks, being simple-minded and not particularly intelligent, do not understand the idea of "probabilistic causation". This means that a factor (gun ownership) is not a sole cause of things, but rather makes things more likely. In each case of a gun homicide, there is a person pulling the trigger. But the presence of the gun in the home CREATES THE CONDITIONS for homicide. The term "probabilistic causation" is used because it is only increasing the likelihood, not a sole or deterministic cause. We do know, with certainty, that a gun homicide cannot occur without a gun. Having the gun increases the likelihood of this happening. There are going to be many studies of HOW MUCH the likelihood is increased, and many numbers will come up. We know, with 100% certainty, that a gun homicide does not occur without a gun. We know, with 100% certainty, that a gun homicide is a form of homicide. Thus, the presence of the gun increases the LIKELIHOOD OR CHANCE of a homicide. Kellermann's 1993 study showed that the likelihood, taking other things into account, is 2.7 times as high. The LIKELIHOOD increaseed. Not to 100% but wayyyy above 0%.
ReplyDeleteClearly no gunsucks even understand the point I am making
DeleteThe fact is, though, that you can't make assertions about every gun owner like that. The 2.7 number sounds like an average or some such. That means that some people are at high risk owning a gun, while some are at so low a risk as to be no risk at all in practical terms.
DeleteGC,
DeleteAnd you can't make blanket statements about every anti gun person, as you do all the time by using the "side" crap argument. Very few anti gun people want to confiscate, or ban guns, but you stupidly claim that all the time.
Greg: Your comments continue to enhance the truth of my statements. Gunsucks cannot reason. ANY comment which is a REMOTE suggestion that guns are responsible for anything is automatically suspect. Actually, guns do make the situation more dangerous. When you get a gun, your thinking changes. You become more paranoid and stupider.
Delete2.7 is an odds ratio, you blithering moron. An ODDS RATIO. Look it fucking up, and stop embarrassing yourself by calling it an average. It's a ratio of probabilities.
DeleteFinally, and I hope conclusively, Greg, NO ONE SAYS THAT EVERY GUN OWNER anything. GEEZUS, the stupid, it fucking BURNS. What the OR means is that the PROBABILITY of a thing is different if the gun is in the home in comparison to cases in which the gun is not in the home. This is a statement about the CHANCE or LIKELIHOOD. It is not a statement that it will ALWAYS be true.
DeleteWhy is this so difficult? We wear seat belts NOT because everyone will have an accident, but because if an accident occurs, the seat belt improves the outcome. We don't allow people to drink and drive because the LIKELIHOOD of a bad thing happening after a certain BAL has been achieved is much higher than below that. It is certainly possible to drive after a few drinks. But have a bunch, and the likelihood of a bad outcome increases considerably.
Why is this so difficult?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYou still do not get the point that I am trying to make. Mere gun ownership presents the problem. When it comes to suicide any gun will do. Features, magazine capacity, etc. do not matter.
You state that you are not for total disarmament yet you want to limit availability. If law abiding people owning guns (guns that could be used in a suicide attempt) are not a problem with you then tell me how a gun in the home cannot be used to off oneself.
I agree with you that safe storage is a good idea. I disagree that mandating it w/ the force of law will have a sizable impact on suicides. Seriously, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want more laws?
If people take an all-or-nothing approach to you and your position its because people know the incremental approach when they see it. If people to not have a right to weapons (2A is "bullshit") then total disarmament is a future option/possibility. If total disarmament is not the aim forf you and/or your camp then when will there be enough restrictions on weapons?
.
What would be enough is when about half the present gun owners are disarmed. That bad half would include most of the trouble makers, the ones who have negligent discharges, who leave their guns laying around for the kids to find, the ones who consider under the pillow proper storage, the ones who sell their guns to people without background checks, etc.
DeleteOnce that's done, the violent crime rates would be so much better that we could comfortable live with the good half owning and using their guns safely.