I think he is probably referring to the kellerman study (and its progeny) that concludes that there is a correlation between owning a gun and being murdered. So people with guns are 3 times more likely to be murdered than people without guns. Of course it doesn’t really tell you how much of that increase is due to the fact that people who are likely to be murdered are more likely to go out and get a gun.
The original Kellerman study also revealed that you are even more likely to be murdered if you are single, if you live alone, and especially if if you do drugs. I bet people with a criminal history are more likely to be murdered as well.
You are also in the category of people who will not be able to defend themselves with a gun. ~700 accidental gun deaths/year. over 100,000 defensive gun uses/year.
I said this in another thread but their experience guides them. A lot of them do rotations in the ER and they reach the conclusion that gunshot wounds are bad. They tend to live in neighborhoods where you really don’t need a gun for self defense (and they tend to come from these neighborhoods as well). Its not hard to see how a doctor might reach the conclusion that guns are bad. that any reduction in the inventory of guns in society is a good thing.
I kinda of enjoy his snide quips, even when they are directed at me. I’m going to guess he grew up with a lot of older brothers or an abusive father (no offense intended Elucidator). Its the sort of skill that you have to learn early in life. Its like learning a new language, its really hard to do late in life unless you are born with the talent.
The gun control folks shot themselves in the foot. They could have had something if they didn’t instinctively reach for one of the stupidest form of gun control in the book. An Assault Weapons Ban.
After the assassination of RFK and MLK, LBJ tried to pass a licensing and registration scheme. LBJ was pretty good at counting votes and he pushed things that he could get passed. His push for licensing and registration wasn’t derailed by the gun lobby or the NRA, it was derailed by the delay caused by gun control who didn’t think that licensing and registration were enough.
Tangent but… I’m not sure about that. Guns hold their value very well and their value has increased enough over the last ten years that a basket of investment grade guns probably outperformed the S&P 500.
Some guns did exceptionally well. Pretty much all the cheap historical guns have increased significantly in value. Pretty much any smith & wesson or Colt revolver has done pretty well.
I can’t access the Kellerman study right now but here is a review by someone who seems to be on the gun control side of the fence.
"The above chart is an example of “univariate analysis,” or a straight comparison between the two groups. But this analysis is incomplete. There are many variables that simultaneously contribute to the odds of a person being murdered: drug use, domestic violence, criminal history, level of protection, etc. A person who answers yes to the question “Does anyone in the house use illicit drugs?” might be nine times more likely to be murdered, but that doesn’t eliminate all the other variables that also contribute to the total murder risk. To isolate the risk attributed to drug use alone, researchers need to perform “multivariate analysis,” which zeroes out all these other factors. That way, we can learn how drug use in and of itself raises the murder risk.
Kellermann’s team found only six variables that were strong enough to be included in the final model. They found that the following variables were associated with the following increased murder risks:"
Among the variables were:
house member arrested 2.5 GUNS!!!.. pew! pew! pew!.. in the house 2.7
living alone 3.7
household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home 3.4
renting your home 4.4
illicit drug use 5.7
Lets say you are climbing a mountain and your partner loses their grip and you try to haul them up but now you are losing YOUR grip and both of you are about to fall. Can you cut him loose?
And if you are going to interpret the law in the conexts of what court say, let me introduce you to Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia
“Roe’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability”
I as a person whose life is at risk can cut my partner lose in defense of my life, I may still be convicted of murder by doing so depending on how a jury interprets the facts. A third party, even if they are a mountaineering expert who understands the consequences of not cutting the rope would certainly be putting their life in legal jeopardy by cutting the rope on my behalf.
Doctors in the course of their work can not choose to kill someone. Fetal person hood puts doctors in a poor legal position. Fetal person hood laws conflict with Roe v Wade. If that conflict rises to the supreme court nothing stops the court from striking the older precident.
If you want to say that one predictor is stronger than another in a multivariate model, you have to directly compare them. You have not provided the statistical test of the comparison that I asked for.
Otherwise you can say that both living alone and having a gun in the home are associated with a higher likelihood of death.
The cite he provided offered a ratio comparison, not a raw numbers comparison:
Moreover, this cite doesn’t depend on times kids “go shooting,” but simply addresses the incidence of kids killed by guns, whether they “go shooting” or not.
Well, of course I agree. As I’ve mentioned once or twice, I don’t favor the Florida law.
But I also don’t favor any law that purports to require the pharmacist to deliver a medication he believes will end a human life. You’ve identified a distinction between the two and declared that the distinction allows the two to be treated differently. Of course no two situations will be exactly alike, but I don’t agree that the conscience clause eliminates the ability of a patient to have a prescribed treatment course.
The assertion is that pools are more dangerous than guns.
Can you honestly say that you would be more worried about fifteen 10 year olds having a pool party than fifteen 10 year olds having a shooting party?
Any sane person would not. More kids die in swimming pools BECAUSE MORE KIDS USE SWIMMING POOLS MORE OFTEN.
It’s the denominator, stupid. If children used guns at an equal rate that they use swimming pools, the number of kids killed by guns would be vastly greater than the number killed by pools.
This is just like the stupid fucks who tried to suggest that it was more dangerous to be driving in California than deployed to military duty in Iraq. How are you people so fucking stupid?
