Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 375774 times)

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1400 on: June 29, 2016, 02:12:34 PM »
Quote
The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

I'm still curious: How many gun owners do you know that self-identify as being below average in their gun safety practices?

It's a very common response among gun supporters: "Those 'X times more likely to hurt a family member' statistics are only true for people that don't properly store and secure their guns. I do know how to take treat my guns with care and respect, therefore, the stats doesn't apply to me, QED."

I guess I'm trolling a bit, but isn't this the same hubris as most drivers believing they are at reduced risk from an accident because they are better-than-average drivers?

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question, I was responding in order of most outrageous post to least, and your question is a reasonable one. If you are trolling, you are trolling a lot less than some others on here.

I don't know people who self-identify as "bad" gun owners. However, I can identify them as such. I know many many "worse" gun owners than me, some who are just as "good" and a few who are "better."

The driving question is a good example. Most drivers think they are above-average. However, many drivers ARE above average, and some are EXCEPTIONAL.

I have been driving since I was 16. I have never been involved in an accident or a moving violation ticket. I drive defensively, I don't speed. I use my blinkers, wear my seat belt and check my blind spots, always. I don't eat a drive, or text and drive. I never drink and drive. I am not some kind of super-driver; I would have no idea how to drive a race car and I would probably kill myself trying to do so. However, I work for an organization that considers driving the most dangerous activity that employees participate in and actively works to make employees safer drivers. I have taken multiple hands-on driving courses through work, as well as twice annual online refreshers which are required. I have embraced and internalized these safe driving habits.

So, would you say I am more or less likely to be killed or injured than the "average" driver?

These same concepts apply to guns and gun owners.


Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1401 on: June 29, 2016, 02:19:30 PM »
Do you just make this stuff up??  BMI as a statistic and as applicable to individuals is a "useless" predictor of health.  Boom!  Dead wrong again dude.

Don't drink and post. I literally said, in my post right above yours, that BMI is NOT a useless predictor of the health of an individual. It is , however, of limited use. While at the population level it can be a good predictor of health, on an individual level it is sometimes useless. The cliché example is The Rock. According to BMI, he is dangerously obese. But a cursory glance at the fellow tells you this is an incorrect assessment.


WTF are you talking about?  A quick review of the medical literature shows a very strong statistical relationship of BMI to health parameters.  You might wanna try a statistics book to see how p values are calculated and what exactly that means.  My guess is you have never used statistics for any wide application or study.  Ignorance of the application of such science doesn't make unicorns possible.

---If you see your B.M.I. is high — above 25 — you need to pay attention to it,” said the study’s senior author, Andrew G. Rundle, an associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia. “Despite the criticism of B.M.I., it’s still a very good health indicator.”---

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1402 on: June 29, 2016, 02:25:26 PM »
Do you just make this stuff up??  BMI as a statistic and as applicable to individuals is a "useless" predictor of health.  Boom!  Dead wrong again dude.

Don't drink and post. I literally said, in my post right above yours, that BMI is NOT a useless predictor of the health of an individual. It is , however, of limited use. While at the population level it can be a good predictor of health, on an individual level it is sometimes useless. The cliché example is The Rock. According to BMI, he is dangerously obese. But a cursory glance at the fellow tells you this is an incorrect assessment.


WTF are you talking about?  A quick review of the medical literature shows a very strong statistical relationship of BMI to health parameters.  You might wanna try a statistics book to see how p values are calculated and what exactly that means.  My guess is you have never used statistics for any wide application or study.  Ignorance of the application of such science doesn't make unicorns possible.

---If you see your B.M.I. is high — above 25 — you need to pay attention to it,” said the study’s senior author, Andrew G. Rundle, an associate professor of epidemiology at Columbia. “Despite the criticism of B.M.I., it’s still a very good health indicator.”---

Holy shitsnacks! BMI is a product of height and weight; that's it. People with an unusual amount of muscle mass will have deceptively high BMIs, while not suffering from any of the ill effects normally associated with MBI-defined obesity. Hence BMI is not always useful when applied to an individual.


Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1403 on: June 29, 2016, 02:30:08 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations.  Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application.  I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 02:34:16 PM by Northwestie »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1404 on: June 29, 2016, 02:40:37 PM »

Quote
The accepted range of self-defense uses of firearms is in the 300K to 750K per year range.  Of course, people like you continue to deny this is true, but you always lose this argument on logical, rational & scientific grounds.  Always.  So even taking the minimum of the range, gun ownership in the United States is a net benefit, every single year.

Really?  Accepted by whom?  The second hit I get on Google when researching the topic indicates that some researchers believe 55 - 80,000 per year is the number of defensive gun usages http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6938&context=jclc.  Then of course you have the impossible task of separating the uses of a gun for self defense where, say a baseball bat would have worked just as well.  The issue of defensive uses of guns is not clear cut at all, and it's a complicated one to study.  It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I see your 20 year old, obviously biased study and raise you another 20 year old, obviously biased study.  BTW, I said 300K only because that was the low end of the practical error range of combined studies of the past several decades....

Quote
The study concluded, based only on stories said to have occurred to the speaker during the past year, and extrapolating from their results, that 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs happened in the U.S. a year.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns

http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Armed-Resistance-to-Crime.pdf

The study I found may well be inaccurate.  My point was simply that there is no commonly accepted number you can use.  Estimating defensive usage of guns is a complicated business, and there are widely varying estimates.  Claiming gun ownership is a net benefit is therefore not really possible if you're being honest.

If I'm being honest, I can claim anything that I believe in.  I do believe that personal gun ownership is a net benefit for society at large, as well as myself personally; any article or statistics or facts that I present are merely in support of that opinion.  You just called me a liar twice, because you don't share my worldview.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1405 on: June 29, 2016, 02:55:45 PM »

If I'm being honest, I can claim anything that I believe in. 

Oh Jesus.  Science and logic look at the world and adjust conclusions based on updated, factual information.  Belief does just the opposite by putting on blinders and ignoring all the facts and evidence.

I like the idea of unicorns too, but really...........

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1406 on: June 29, 2016, 03:01:35 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations. Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application. I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.

Inversely, discussions of a wider application are not specifically applicable to every individual...much like BMI.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1407 on: June 29, 2016, 03:03:56 PM »
Wow - that's a brilliant conclusion.  You mean you could find an anecdotal application to a larger population based statistical analysis -- that therefore proves exactly -- yes, nothing??  Wow. 

Next up --- the global climate change hoax soon to be followed by the denunciation of special relativity "because I see no proof of it". Sigh.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1408 on: June 29, 2016, 03:07:31 PM »

If I'm being honest, I can claim anything that I believe in. 

Oh Jesus.  Science and logic look at the world and adjust conclusions based on updated, factual information.  Belief does just the opposite by putting on blinders and ignoring all the facts and evidence.

I like the idea of unicorns too, but really...........

You believe that you are a rational person that bases your worldview on facts and science, but in the end it's still a belief.  I'm just the one of us that understands this is so.

[MOD NOTE: Sorry.  Solipsism is forbidden by the Forum Rules ... or at last you can't decisively prove it isn't.]
« Last Edit: July 13, 2016, 09:36:50 AM by FrugalToque »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1409 on: June 29, 2016, 03:17:24 PM »
No I didn't.   I was happy to see that most of the gun aficionados took firearm safety seriously though.  :-)    I also never thought this thread would go on so long.

Mustachianism is about self reliance. I'm actually more surprised at how many of the 'anti' crowd are on here and how little they really know about firearms. I don't mean that as an insult. I believe it probably has to do with how much of our population has shifted to city centers.

I mean, it should be. But take a look at the thread about using Obamacare to help speed up FIRE, or the love of EV tax credits, and the burning devotion on here to any and all social spending programs. Everyone has their own way of expressing Mustachianism with different levels of self-reliance. But for many Mustachians, this self-reliance tends to be expressed in superficial ways as a method of virtue-signaling.

There are correct and trendy ways to be self-reliant. Brew your own beer, ride a bike you fixed up from Craigslist. Then there are incorrect and uncool ways to be self-reliant, like having an effective means to protect yourself and your family, or opposing government wealth-transfer payments.

You're making assumptions again.  It hasn't been proven that a gun in the home is an effective way of protecting your family.  Given the number of 'accidental' shootings, an argument to the contrary can be made pretty easily.

Seriously, this again? You are asking me to PROVE that a gun in my hand is an effective way to protect myself and my wife from a violent intruder?

No.  I'm not claiming that a gun is an ineffective way to protect yourself and your wife from a violent intruder.  I'm challenging your assertion that having a gun in the home makes your family safer than not having a gun in the home.  Violent home intrusions aren't particularly common in most places.  Suicide and accidents with guns are common.

I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Yeah, that's exactly the claim that I was challenging and asking for proof of.  You, having guns in your home . . . doesn't make your family safer.

The point you seem to fail to grasp is that studies and statistics are often meaningless when applied to individuals. A quick google search tells me that the chances of any given person being killed in a shark attack are 1 in 3.75 million. On it's face, this statistic tells us that it is extremely unlikely for some randomly selected person to be killed by a shark.

John is born, lives his entire life, and dies in Arizona. This statistic is meaningless to him because he has ZERO chance of being killed by a shark.

Kelly live ins North Texas but takes an annual trip to the Gulf of Mexico every summer to spend a week at the beach. This statistic is very meaningful to Kelly because she is close to the "average" or "random" individual in the population.

Fred is a lifelong professional surfer. He surfs 200 days a year, every year, for decades in locales all over the world. This statistic is meaningless to him because he is MUCH MORE likely to be killed by a shark than a randomly selected member of the population.

The same applies to "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt a family member than an intruder" studies for the same reasons. As it applies to the gun-owning population as a whole, it may (MAY!) have some validity. But it is often useless when applied to any particular gun owner or gun owning household due primarily to two variable: an individual household's gun safety practices, and the household's risk for home invasion.

So, in your examples the more often you're exposed to the ocean, the greater the chance of getting bitten by a shark.  The guy who never goes to the ocean has little chance of being bitten.

Your example proves my point very well.

Having exposure to guns in your home means you have a greater chance of someone in your family being shot.  The guy with no guns in his home is better protecting his family from getting shot.  Hence the point of contention with your statement above about protecting your family.

Wait wait... I said having firearms in my home makes my family safer. You are saying it doesn't. Do You think you have PROVEN that my family is less safe due to the presence of firearms?

And there you go picking out an insignificant part of my statement to pick apart instead of attempting to understand the point. My example showed that statistics aren't always meaningful when applied to individuals. How about this one.

People involved in water sports have X chance of drowning.

John hangs out on the bay all day boating every Saturday in the summer with his friends. John and his friends drink heavily. None of them know how to swim. They pay no attention to weather reports.

Bill and his friends hang out on the bay all day every Saturday fishing. They all know how to swim, wear life vests, drink plenty of water and nothing else, and pay close attention to weather forecasts.

Do John and Bill spend equal amounts of time on the water, but do they have equal chances of drowning? Obviously not.

To be fair, STV pointed out that a gun in the home increases the chance of a family member being shot. You are arguing it can deter other sorts of violent incidents. You are using the general term 'safety'  in regards to "protecting' your family and STV is ONLY pointing out one very specific type of concern.  So, quite clearly, you could both very easily be correct, since neither of you is arguing the same point....
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1410 on: June 29, 2016, 03:23:16 PM »
Wow - that's a brilliant conclusion.  You mean you could find an anecdotal application to a larger population based statistical analysis -- that therefore proves exactly -- yes, nothing??  Wow. 

Next up --- the global climate change hoax soon to be followed by the denunciation of special relativity "because I see no proof of it". Sigh.

You sure do use "wow" a lot.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1411 on: June 29, 2016, 03:25:05 PM »
Wow - that's a brilliant conclusion.  You mean you could find an anecdotal application to a larger population based statistical analysis -- that therefore proves exactly -- yes, nothing??  Wow. 

Next up --- the global climate change hoax soon to be followed by the denunciation of special relativity "because I see no proof of it". Sigh.

You sure do use "wow" a lot.

Some liberals are easily impressed.  I've noticed this myself many years ago.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1412 on: June 29, 2016, 03:27:18 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations.  Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application.  I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.

I think you're clearly missing some data. Arguing that a statistic, without any other information, is a better predictor of an event than the sum data points of a individual case is... mind boggelingly incorrect.  Once more variables are introduced, the stastical study that is compiled without those variables becomes less accurate - i.e. BMI does have a weak correlation with general health, but age, activity level, family history, muscle mass etc. combined completely override it. Just like gun safety - having a gun increases the chance of getting shot. Taking safety precautions, practicing regularly, storing correctly etc. etc. all LOWER the risk from that baseline - the risk doesn't stay the same because of "statistics."  Feel free to exclude whatever variables you wish Northwestie, in order to fit your preconcieved notions, but do know that you are incorrect in your conclusions, and your statistical analysis is very flawed.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1413 on: June 29, 2016, 03:31:15 PM »
I love it!!  We've been drifting from the lack of a coherent response to the public health statistics in peer reviewed journals to now, the chaff of sentence structure.  Woot! 

Next up -- a tour of the Creation Museum (a real thing!)https://arkencounter.com/ and the explanation of how the earth is only 6,000 years old -- despite the statistical analysis of carbon dating.  It could be true in this one instant!

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1414 on: June 29, 2016, 03:33:45 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations.  Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application.  I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.

I think you're clearly missing some data. Arguing that a statistic, without any other information, is a better predictor of an event than the sum data points of a individual case is... mind boggelingly incorrect.  Once more variables are introduced, the stastical study that is compiled without those variables becomes less accurate - i.e. BMI does have a weak correlation with general health, but age, activity level, family history, muscle mass etc. combined completely override it. Just like gun safety - having a gun increases the chance of getting shot. Taking safety precautions, practicing regularly, storing correctly etc. etc. all LOWER the risk from that baseline - the risk doesn't stay the same because of "statistics."  Feel free to exclude whatever variables you wish Northwestie, in order to fit your preconcieved notions, but do know that you are incorrect in your conclusions, and your statistical analysis is very flawed.

Ahh -- Hello!  Every hear of data transformation and controlling for variables.  Oh my gosh - just like those peer reviewed studies!

Now back down hear on earth and the subject at hand, please show a similar peer reviewed journal public health article that shows that you, your family, and guests are safer with a firearm in the house. 

"Crickets"

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1415 on: June 29, 2016, 03:36:28 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations.  Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application.  I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.

I am starting to think you are not discussing this in good faith, but just in case you are I will try to express myself one more time.

BMI is a result of scientists studying the relationship that excess body fat has on health. For purposes of studying populations, they developed a scale using the relationship between height and weight (rather than body fat percentage), because everyone knows their height and weight. The BMI can often reliably predict that people with elevated BMIs are at high risk for obesity-related negative health outcomes. This is science and is useful for studying and projecting health outcomes for populations.

If a random person on the internet tells you they have a BMI of, say 27, a person like Northwestie would say (or simply think) "With a BMI of 27, you are at a high risk of suffering from obesity-related negative health outcomes now or in the future." This is a reasonable assumption to make given the info Northwestie has to work with, but it is still an assumption, and assumptions are often incorrect.

Let's say it turns out the random stranger with a BMI of 27 has a low body fat percentage wears 32W pants and performs Olympic lifts with heavy weights 3-5 days a week. This person would in fact have a LOW (thought not NO) risk of suffering from negative obesity-related health outcomes.  So in effect, Northwestie's seemingly reasonable statement about the person's health would in fact be WRONG.

Similarly...

Social scientists have done research into the number of households with firearms, as well as the occurrence of negative gun-related outcomes in households. Using this research, they have determined that people in gun-owning households have a 1 in X chance of suffering from a negative gun-related outcome. This may be of some value when discussing the effects of gun ownership on populations.

If a random person on the internet says "I have a gun in my household", a person like Northwestie (or GuitarSTV) would say "You have a 1 in X chance of suffering from a negative gun-related outcome." This may be a reasonable assumption based on the information they have to work with, but it is still an assumption and assumptions have an inconvenient tendency to be wrong.

Let's say it turns out the random gun owner on the internet has extensive formal training on the safe use of firearms, and is in fact a firearms instructor. This person is in good mental health, religiously follows safe gun handling and storage practices, and doesn't have children in the home. This person would in fact have a LOW (though not NO) chance of suffering from a negative gun-related outcome. Much less than the 1 in X chance seemingly predicted by the study. So, in effect, Northwestie's assumption would turn out to be WRONG.

None of this means that research performed by scientists or even social scientists is USELESS. It doesn't mean that it is not ALWAYS useful.


JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1416 on: June 29, 2016, 03:37:00 PM »
I love it!!  We've been drifting from the lack of a coherent response to the public health statistics in peer reviewed journals to now, the chaff of sentence structure.  Woot! 

Next up -- a tour of the Creation Museum (a real thing!)https://arkencounter.com/ and the explanation of how the earth is only 6,000 years old -- despite the statistical analysis of carbon dating.  It could be true in this one instant!

You're rapidly gaining points towards "most annoying person on the MMM forums" with your constant hyperbole.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1417 on: June 29, 2016, 03:39:43 PM »
It's interesting how insightful you are -- boom!  easily refuting years of medical research and publications without any statistical or public health training.  I think you should now turn your powerful skills to other scientific endeavors now that the realm of statistics is proven fallacy.  The Flat Earth Society is always taking on comers.  Next -- fossil proof of unicorns.  Awesome.

Statistical inference and scientific analysis is based on the study of specific populations.  Discussions of an individual are nothing more than anecdotal and offer no wider application.  I know it's difficult -- but it's SCIENCE.

I think you're clearly missing some data. Arguing that a statistic, without any other information, is a better predictor of an event than the sum data points of a individual case is... mind boggelingly incorrect.  Once more variables are introduced, the stastical study that is compiled without those variables becomes less accurate - i.e. BMI does have a weak correlation with general health, but age, activity level, family history, muscle mass etc. combined completely override it. Just like gun safety - having a gun increases the chance of getting shot. Taking safety precautions, practicing regularly, storing correctly etc. etc. all LOWER the risk from that baseline - the risk doesn't stay the same because of "statistics."  Feel free to exclude whatever variables you wish Northwestie, in order to fit your preconcieved notions, but do know that you are incorrect in your conclusions, and your statistical analysis is very flawed.

Ahh -- Hello!  Every hear of data transformation and controlling for variables.  Oh my gosh - just like those peer reviewed studies!

Now back down hear on earth and the subject at hand, please show a similar peer reviewed journal public health article that shows that you, your family, and guests are safer with a firearm in the house. 

"Crickets"

Define "safer" please. (Watches head explode when safer does not equate to 'likelyhood of getting shot')
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1418 on: June 29, 2016, 03:44:11 PM »
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.  Not my claim.  Supposedly translation into less likely to be harmed by black or brown people, the boogey man, the wise acre kids across the street, my neighbors mean cat, jack-booted-government thugs, and of course, foreign invaders.   Lastly, our black president.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1419 on: June 29, 2016, 03:45:30 PM »
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.


Oh. Well then, no wonder you're losing the argument. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3542
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1420 on: June 29, 2016, 03:45:56 PM »
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.


Oh. Well then, no wonder you're losing the argument. :D

I lol'd.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1421 on: June 29, 2016, 03:52:33 PM »
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.


Oh. Well then, no wonder you're losing the argument. :D

I lol'd.

Pretty simple to follow - you guys are claiming you are somehow "safer".   The science, data, and statistics clearly show that with a firearm in the house it is much more likely to harm a relative, friend, or neighbor and that the homicide and suicide rates are quite significantly higher than in households where they are not present.

So - your are more likely to have an accidental, homicidal, or suicidal death in a household with a gun than those that don't. 

That meets my standard of "harm".   So now maybe you could come up with a public health statistical peer-reviewed analysis that counters this or somehow (fairy dust?) shows that you are statistically "safer" despite the much greater likelihood of blowing away grandma than an intruder?

Waiting.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1422 on: June 29, 2016, 04:02:12 PM »
I have no figgin' idea what that is suppose to mean.


Oh. Well then, no wonder you're losing the argument. :D

I lol'd.

Pretty simple to follow - you guys are claiming you are somehow "safer".   The science, data, and statistics clearly show that with a firearm in the house it is much more likely to harm a relative, friend, or neighbor and that the homicide and suicide rates are quite significantly higher than in households where they are not present.

So - your are more likely to have an accidental, homicidal, or suicidal death in a household with a gun than those that don't. 

That meets my standard of "harm".   So now maybe you could come up with a public health statistical peer-reviewed analysis that counters this or somehow (fairy dust?) shows that you are statistically "safer" despite the much greater likelihood of blowing away grandma than an intruder?

Waiting.

This is the problem with your statements. You are applying statistics that describe populations to individuals. I know I am over-simplifying your underlying argument here, BUT... I don't have a living grandmother, so there is a 0% chancer I will accidentally kill my grandmother.

A depressed alcoholic with a loaded gun under the pillow, 3 children, and no firearms skills who lives in a gated community in the Hamptons is probably more likely to end up with a shot family member than a shot intruder.

But a special forces veteran with good mental health, excellent firearms skills and safety practices who lives alone in a meth-lab infested trailer park is NOT more likely to harm themselves than an intruder.

These are two obviously on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Most gun owners fall somewhere in between. However it is INCORRECT to say that I am more likely to hurt myself or my family than an intruder. It is incorrect and laughable, as you don't know my particular circumstances.

We live in a relatively free society where it is up to each person to evaluate the risk-reward of any particular action and proceed accordingly. This is how it should be.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 04:03:48 PM by winkeyman »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1423 on: June 29, 2016, 04:04:04 PM »



I know I am over-simplifying your underlying argument here, BUT..............

There is no but -- anecdotal information has no wider application.   Show me a peer reviewed study that backs up your assertion that you are less likely to be harmed with a gun in the house.   

Waiting.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1424 on: June 29, 2016, 04:09:21 PM »



I know I am over-simplifying your underlying argument here, BUT..............

There is no but -- anecdotal information has no wider application.   Show me a peer reviewed study that backs up your assertion that you are less likely to be harmed with a gun in the house.   

Waiting.

W the actual F....

Is this a joke? Are you trolling at this point? I don't need a peer-reviewed study to tell ME what MY risk is. How in the shit would I even make that happen. The only way to please you would be to hire multiple experts in risk analysis to live in my home for weeks or months, follow me around, observe my habits, WITHOUT ME KNOWING THEY WERE WATCHING ME,  compile and publish their results to be reviewed by other experts (who would have no interest in reviewing such a "study") and then present you with the results.

With the burden of proof you demand, there is no reason to respond to you further.

Seriously, when did the internet become so pedantic that even simple personal statements about one's home life are met with demands for peer-reviewed studies. Unreal.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 04:13:09 PM by winkeyman »

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1425 on: June 29, 2016, 04:11:26 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Well no, I'm not asking for a study of an individual - that is anecdotal and provides nothing useful.  If you could, in contrast, come up with a public health study that looked at two populations with guns in the house - one untrained and the other with some standard training - and then compare the accidental, suicide, and homicide rates - then that would be a comparison worth considering. 

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

« Last Edit: June 29, 2016, 04:14:20 PM by Northwestie »

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1426 on: June 29, 2016, 04:18:22 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Statements about the age of the earth have a relatively objective discoverable answer. Any scientist with the inclination can study the natural world and draw evidence-based conclusions about it and its age.

My personal life, not so much. You know nothing about my personal life. Neither does any researcher that I am aware of. No researcher every contacted me about my habits or lived in my home and observed my behavior. Nor will they. For you to believe that you or some nebulous researchers know more about my personal life and habits than me is truly mystifying. If a close friend or family member made a statement about my personal risk as it applies to owning a gun (or some other behavior), I would pay SOME attention. But you, random internet stranger, have no clue what you are talking about.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1427 on: June 29, 2016, 04:22:08 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Well no, I'm not asking for a study of an individual - that is anecdotal and provides nothing useful.  If you could, in contrast, come up with a public health study that looked at two populations with guns in the house - one untrained and the other with some standard training - and then compare the accidental, suicide, and homicide rates - then that would be a comparison worth considering. 

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

There is no such study that I am aware of; and I think I would be aware of it if such a thing did exist. Is it your position that until a formal peer-reviewed study is published about a particular idea, people should not hold a position on that particular idea?

Even such a study would not be an accurate representation of every individual in those two groups, much less me in particular.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1428 on: June 29, 2016, 04:22:31 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Well no, I'm not asking for a study of an individual - that is anecdotal and provides nothing useful.  If you could, in contrast, come up with a public health study that looked at two populations with guns in the house - one untrained and the other with some standard training - and then compare the accidental, suicide, and homicide rates - then that would be a comparison worth considering. 

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study as to the effects of gun control policies on gun homicide rates, which no one arguing for gun control has provided.

I don't give a crap about what people decide to do in their own houses. I don't care about accidental deaths. I don't care about suicides. Those continue to be red herrings to derail the conversation revolving around the intent of people knowingly inflicting gun violence upon another person and suggested policies that you recommend to mitigate that, balancing with the requirement of upholding the lawful individual's ability to own and purchase firearms.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1429 on: June 29, 2016, 04:23:03 PM »

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

Probably.  You do seem to be a contrary toddler.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1430 on: June 29, 2016, 04:25:07 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Well no, I'm not asking for a study of an individual - that is anecdotal and provides nothing useful.  If you could, in contrast, come up with a public health study that looked at two populations with guns in the house - one untrained and the other with some standard training - and then compare the accidental, suicide, and homicide rates - then that would be a comparison worth considering. 

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study as to the effects of gun control policies on gun homicide rates, which no one arguing for gun control has provided.

I don't give a crap about what people decide to do in their own houses. I don't care about accidental deaths. I don't care about suicides. Those continue to be red herrings to derail the conversation revolving around the intent of people knowingly inflicting gun violence upon another person and suggested policies that you recommend to mitigate that, balancing with the requirement of upholding the lawful individual's ability to own and purchase firearms.

Well, since the GOP continually blocks any public health studies regarding gun ownership - they have to be funded outside of the largest funder of science in the U.S., it's harder to get any more clarity on this, eh?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1431 on: June 29, 2016, 04:31:00 PM »
I see -- then your OPINION is what this comes down to.  Glad we got to the bottom of this.

As a scientist I'm more fact based.   Some folks also believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  It's also an opinion based on, well, nothing factual.

Well no, I'm not asking for a study of an individual - that is anecdotal and provides nothing useful.  If you could, in contrast, come up with a public health study that looked at two populations with guns in the house - one untrained and the other with some standard training - and then compare the accidental, suicide, and homicide rates - then that would be a comparison worth considering. 

Any more spoon-feeding required here?

I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study as to the effects of gun control policies on gun homicide rates, which no one arguing for gun control has provided.

I don't give a crap about what people decide to do in their own houses. I don't care about accidental deaths. I don't care about suicides. Those continue to be red herrings to derail the conversation revolving around the intent of people knowingly inflicting gun violence upon another person and suggested policies that you recommend to mitigate that, balancing with the requirement of upholding the lawful individual's ability to own and purchase firearms.

Well, since the GOP continually blocks any public health studies regarding gun ownership - they have to be funded outside of the largest funder of science in the U.S., it's harder to get any more clarity on this, eh?

Just ask Bloomburg to pitch in.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1432 on: June 29, 2016, 04:33:47 PM »
Well, given that All the evidence supports my view  - I've no need to shop around.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Age: 34
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1433 on: June 29, 2016, 04:50:36 PM »
Well, given that All the evidence supports my view  - I've no need to shop around.

Still waiting on evidence.

Cyaphas

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 34
  • Location: DFW, TX
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1434 on: June 29, 2016, 11:07:45 PM »

You sure do use "wow" a lot.


His brain hits that wall often. He then deflects; always belittling and occasionally throwing in a veiled or even blatant ad hominem. I think he's one of those people who thinks, if he shouts loud enough he wins.
“For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”
-Nelson Mandela

“Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants – but debt is the money of slaves.”
-Norm Franz

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1435 on: June 30, 2016, 08:28:52 AM »
Well, since the GOP continually blocks any public health studies regarding gun ownership - they have to be funded outside of the largest funder of science in the U.S., it's harder to get any more clarity on this, eh?

Wait... so you're saying that the evidence, in either direction, as applicable to the population of the United States of America, is inconclusive (at best); and, despite that recognized fact, you're sill ok drawing a conclusion and arguing for policies based on that incomplete data? How scientific is that?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1436 on: June 30, 2016, 08:52:26 AM »
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1437 on: June 30, 2016, 09:09:55 AM »
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

I guess you could scroll up and read the studies that point out that DGU's easily equal, if not outweigh, the combined accident/suicide rate/homicide rate. Meaning that, at minimum, the number of violent incidents prevented is equal to or great than the number of non-intentional firearm injuries sustained by gun owning households. So.... 'safer'
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1438 on: June 30, 2016, 09:11:47 AM »
Lol, I read the following in a comment on a CNBC article today:

"Gun nuts off themselves and family at over 30,000 per year. Pity them. Imagine a mandatory lottery in USA where you have to enter your name if you own a gun. Then 30,000 get picked and are eliminated. It's a good Darwinian solution for the depressed and angry, but horrifying for gun owners."

Was this you Northwestie? The commenter, like you, seems to think that it's random, like a lottery! Hilarious shit.

As to your comment "It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house." I really don't know quite how to respond to that. Do some people experience a spike of fear due to a personal event, and run out and buy a gun? Yes. A woman who is attacked by a predator in her home might buy a gun soon afterwards, out of fear. And there is nothing wrong with that.

However, most gun owners do not buy/own guns out of fear. For most of us, we have always had firearms in the house, as did our parents and grandparents and great grandparents etc. They are a fixture in our lives and always will be, and fear has nothing to do with it.   

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1439 on: June 30, 2016, 09:16:40 AM »
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

I guess you could scroll up and read the studies that point out that DGU's easily equal, if not outweigh, the combined accident/suicide rate/homicide rate. Meaning that, at minimum, the number of violent incidents prevented is equal to or great than the number of non-intentional firearm injuries sustained by gun owning households. So.... 'safer'

If you read through the studies of DGUs posted above, you'll see that they vary too wildly to be able to support the claim that you're making.  This is why (in post 1460) Moonshadow admitted that his similar statements were purely a matter of faith on his part and not evidence based.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1440 on: June 30, 2016, 09:48:35 AM »
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

I guess you could scroll up and read the studies that point out that DGU's easily equal, if not outweigh, the combined accident/suicide rate/homicide rate. Meaning that, at minimum, the number of violent incidents prevented is equal to or great than the number of non-intentional firearm injuries sustained by gun owning households. So.... 'safer'

If you read through the studies of DGUs posted above, you'll see that they vary too wildly to be able to support the claim that you're making.  This is why (in post 1460) Moonshadow admitted that his similar statements were purely a matter of faith on his part and not evidence based.

I'm not able to argue the validity of those studies. I'm not nearly familiar enough with their methedology or invested enough in the outcome to try. My point is that they're at least as valid as the well-debunked Kellerman studies.  And out of all of the DGU studies, even the lowest end estimates are still higher than the accident rate. Usable data is short on either side of the discussion- agreed. But conclusions can still be drawn:

If you are truly fearful of being shot, don't keep a gun in your house. Don't associate with people who own guns, or engage in criminal behavior. They are more likely than an average person to be shot.
You could still be shot. I hope you are not.

If you're more fearful of someone breaking in and assaulting you, or being attacked in public without a means to defend yourself, get a license to carry a concealed weapon. You are then less likely to commit a crime, be involved in a violent altercation or shoot someone than the general population. You actually become less likely to commit a crime than even a police officer.
You could still be assaulted. I hope you are not.

There are no garuantees that either action will prevent what you fear, but these actions will statistically reduce the risk, statistically speaking.  Introducing more variables, or removing them (gun locks, no kids, training, socio-economic status, substance abuse, etc.) does alter the risk; please consider these before purchasing any firearm.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1441 on: June 30, 2016, 02:28:22 PM »
I didn't say that having a gun in the home makes a person safer. Me, having guns in MY home, makes MY family safer.

Uh huh.  Roll eyes.  EVERYONE thinks that somehow the statistics don't apply to them. Nope, no way.  We're special.  My firearm will not be used to kill grandma on the way to the bathroom, my kid, my kid's friend, the neighbor looking for a lost cat, someone asking directions, etc. etc. 

Everyone thinks their special.  Newsflash - you're not.

Quote
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Quote
American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 V160 (10)

What a stupid study.  So it's news that people with guns in their home die more often from guns than people who don't?  I'm pretty sure people with chainsaws in their home die more often from chainsaw deaths than people who don't own them.  More toddlers die from falling TVs from homes with TVs than ones that don't.  Who would have thought?

No, I don't think I'm special.  Actually I'm part of the VAST majority of firearm owners who have never had an incident. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1442 on: June 30, 2016, 10:11:14 PM »
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

I guess you could scroll up and read the studies that point out that DGU's easily equal, if not outweigh, the combined accident/suicide rate/homicide rate. Meaning that, at minimum, the number of violent incidents prevented is equal to or great than the number of non-intentional firearm injuries sustained by gun owning households. So.... 'safer'

If you read through the studies of DGUs posted above, you'll see that they vary too wildly to be able to support the claim that you're making.  This is why (in post 1460) Moonshadow admitted that his similar statements were purely a matter of faith on his part and not evidence based.

Um, no.  That's not what I said, and not remotely what I meant either.  I said that I believe it, and I present evidence in support of my beliefs.  So do you.  We all do, because it's all that we can do.  The facts are that the possible range is quite wide, and I chose a number near the middle that I believe is reasonable.  But even if you insist that it's near the absolute bottom of that range, we are still talking about 75,000 or so lawful, defensive gun uses per year.  How many deaths by gun suicide and/or 'negligent discharge' occur each year again?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8232
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1443 on: July 01, 2016, 05:30:13 AM »
281
No, try and follow along now.  I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y.    All the research shows a very significant correlation with a gun in the house and significantly higher rates of homicide, accidental shootings, and suicide.  Most reasonable folks would interpret that as in the less safe column - I mean, that you are most likely to blow off grandma's head than fend off the boogey man. 

You can scroll up numerous articles on the subject provided previously - if you are more curious on the subject you can dive into the Lit Cit of each of those articles.  Now conversely, there is NO evidenced in the public health peer-reviewed literature to show that you are safer with a gun in the house, despite the arm-waving hysterics. 

It's never been clear to me why people are so scared that they feel they need to have a gun in the house. 

Well, back to the subject at hand -- still waiting on any scientific literature supporting your position.  Dum, dee-dum,   waiting, waiting.

I guess you could scroll up and read the studies that point out that DGU's easily equal, if not outweigh, the combined accident/suicide rate/homicide rate. Meaning that, at minimum, the number of violent incidents prevented is equal to or great than the number of non-intentional firearm injuries sustained by gun owning households. So.... 'safer'
Y

If you read through the studies of DGUs posted above, you'll see that they vary too wildly to be able to support the claim that you're making.  This is why (in post 1460) Moonshadow admitted that his similar statements were purely a matter of faith on his part and not evidence based.

Um, no.  That's not what I said, and not remotely what I meant either.  I said that I believe it, and I present evidence in support of my beliefs.  So do you.  We all do, because it's all that we can do.  The facts are that the possible range is quite wide, and I chose a number near the middle that I believe is reasonable.  But even if you insist that it's near the absolute bottom of that range, we are still talking about 75,000 or so lawful, defensive gun uses per year.  How many deaths by gun suicide and/or 'negligent discharge' occur each year again?

According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1444 on: July 01, 2016, 06:00:09 AM »
There seems to be a lot of angst over the fact that the US government doesn't fund studies into gun violence. It all strikes me as much ado about nothing.

Let's say Congress gives the CDC and others $10 Billion in grants to fund the kind of studies GuitarSTV and Northwestie and others would like to see done.

Now let's suppose those studies prove conclusively that our current federal gun laws create a situation where guns cause more harm than good . As in, more people are shot accidentally/maliciously than are helped by the presence or use of a firearm. (Note: I don't believe such a study would end up showing this, but let's pretend it would for the sake of argument)

Ok, so now what? The researchers who conduct the study, as well as other experts and legislators, propose a bunch of suggestions that would help mitigate or reverse the problem identified. They include some combination of:

Registration of guns and their owners.
A general ban on handguns, with exceptions for those who obtain special licenses.
A ban on all private transfers of firearms.
A ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns paired with confiscation/"buyback".
All firearms purchases will have a 10 day waiting period.
Firearms must be stored at a gun club/range.
Firearms must be stored under lock and key, unloaded, subject to random police inspection.

Even given proof that they would mitigate the proven harm of firearms proliferation (as demonstrated by our hypothetical study), I would not support a single one of these measures. Not a single one. Neither would most gun owners. Neither would the NRA (I hope). And all of these measures would be unconstitutional. So none of the legislation would pass. And if it did, it would be struck down. But even if these measures somehow passed and made it by a derelict SCOTUS, we wouldn't follow the new laws anyway. And if pushed too hard, we would fight back, and I do mean fight.

So to quote a brilliant, inspiring, and courageous woman:

What difference, at this point, does it make?

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1445 on: July 01, 2016, 06:30:20 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats?  You can't have it both ways.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1112
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1446 on: July 01, 2016, 07:07:42 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats?  You can't have it both ways.

I've been wondering how a ban on semi-auto weapons or assault weapons impacts suicide. 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4217
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1447 on: July 01, 2016, 08:04:43 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1448 on: July 01, 2016, 08:22:22 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

I'm not talking about success rate...I know that guns are "more successful". 

All I'm saying is that if guns disappeared tomorrow, some of those suicides would still happen by pills or knives or whatever.  If you're going to say "some portion of home defense is possible with a baseball bat", you also have to acknowledge that "some portion of suicides and murders will still happen even if guns were gone".


winkeyman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 353
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1449 on: July 01, 2016, 08:22:51 AM »
According to the CDC (from the Wikipedia page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States), in 2013:
73,505 people were shot but didn't die
11,208 people were murdered
21,175 people committed suicide with a gun
505 people accidentally killed themselves
281 people we're not sure about


So, it sounds like we're looking at in the ballpark of 105,000 people each year who are negatively impacted by gun use, which makes the actual number of DGUs kinda important to your point.

How many defensive gun uses per year could be replaced with a baseball bat, or fists?  We don't know.  What is the total number of DGUs in per year?  We don't know.  The evidence you present is inconclusive, but you are pretending it can be used to draw conclusions.  That's dishonest.  As you've mentioned twice now, your conclusions are based upon your beliefs not what the available data shows.

How many suicides and murders could be completed with pills or knives or baseball bats? You can't have it both ways.
We actually do know somewhat the difference between those using pills vs guns because there is a statistically significant difference in methodology of suicide based on gender.  Men are more likely to use guns, women pills (and to a less extent using knives to bleed out).  We know that those who use guns are "more successful" in completely the suicide making a statistical difference between rate of competed suicides between the genders where no statistical gender difference in the attempt.  Should we know more?  Yes, which is why the fact that the NRA has gotten congress to not fund the research says something.

To what end? Do I want people in general to commit suicide? No.
Am I glad there are plenty of organizations out there who are dedicated to suicide prevention? Yes.
Do I think we should spend public money, or make it a public policy imperative to prevent suicide? No.
Do I think we should restrict the right to keep and bear firearms (or access to anything for that matter)? Certainly not.

People commit suicide. You suspect access to firearms may increase the number of suicides. You get the federal government to spend millions on a study that proves the availability of firearms increases suicide rates. So. Freaking. What? You just wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Good job.