PS I wasn’t trolling you earlier for citations, Hentor; since I first posted I really did get a pile of crap dumped in my Inbox by my secretary that I’d probably better focus on. As I said, some other time then?
Ever watch the springer show when the guests have some sort of spousal relationship that is in crisis? Shoud these folks be permitted to be near firearms? If there was a gun on a table on stage between the parties, would you be climbing over your seat mates for the closest exit or hiding behind the whale sitting in front of you? At its most basic level, I think this illustrates why I support a better safe than sorry approach to firearm restraining orders early on in high conflict separations.
No, you haven’t been looking forward to my post, my good douchebag. You’ve been a part of threads many times in the past which debunked Kellerman, and you don’t care. You don’t even care that Kellerman retracted the study you like to take as truth because it was grossly inaccurate. His “evidence” fits what you want to believe.
So I wasn’t that enthusiastic about following up my post. Poor form, I admit. But it was tangenital and I was too lazy to do the work so I just left the thread instead.
That, and there’s a thread concurrent with this one that focuses more on the issue than this thread does. I should’ve pointed that out.
From that thread:
From past threads:
And here
And so on…
I bring those up because they’ve done the leg work in the past of debunking it on these boards and I was lazy. But if you want further detailed methodological criticisms of Kellerman, start here and here. Both of those debunk Kellerman specifically, and other studies in which the gun issue has been dealt with with faulty methodology.
The Kellerman “study” was essentially his effort to cherry pick data and suit his criteria to support the conclusion he was going for. He found a place with a small sample of deaths that heavily skewed towards crime and suicide, and then attempted to mislead people into thinking that these instances of crime and suicide were the result generally of the inherent danger of common gun owners keeping guns.
The vast majority of deaths in this case are suicide, which automatically makes it bullshit. There’s little to no correlation between the availability of guns and suicide rate, so the guns didn’t cause the suicides. Certainly people don’t sell the “43 times more likely to kill a loved one or acquantaince” bullshit line as “if you commit suicide you’ll probably use a gun”.
Others are crimes from an area cherry picked with many gang related deaths, but because these deaths were amongst gang rivals who knew each other, they were acquaintenaces and hence you can go ahead and group up the idea of one gang member shooting another in a driveby with some guy shooting his wife by accident. Same thing!
The study is so flawed due to the way the data was categorized and analyzed, from the cherry picked nature of it, and the small sample size that it showed living alone or renting rather than owning your property is far more correlated with death than gun ownership. Why aren’t people saying “OMG, if you live in an apartment or you live alone you’re like 50x more likely to be killed!”? Well… because there’s not a big “anti-living alone” lobby out there that picks its evidence based on what it wants to believe. But surely you can understand that if the results of a study say that living alone or renting has a greater than 43:1 increased likelihood of dying, there’s probably a methodological flaw in there somewhere, right?
Read the two articles I linked above, they do more detailed debunking. I would say “I hope you find this information useful”, but we both know that you won’t. You aren’t interested in getting at the truth, and you will be repeating the same Kellerman bullshit the next thread we talk about the issue.
Yes, she probably thought carrying a gun made her safer. Did she think it made her safer from being murdered by her husband? Did she keep herself in a locked room in her own home with a gun at the ready? No, I doubt “gotta prevent myself from being murdered by my husband” was on her list of reasons for owning or carrying a gun.
Seatbelts make us safer too. But people still die while wearing a seatbelt. It doesn’t protect against everything. Would I be laughing when some poor guy who wore his seatbelt for protection ended up getting killed in an accident anyway?
I’m conceding that it would indeed be ironic if her choice to carry a gun for protection was what ultimately ended up causing her harm. You have not proved that case nor even made it seem likely.
It’s no more relevant here than with any other two gun owners then. Why does her having carried a gun in public specifically have relevance here?
Again, if she shot herself accidentally with a gun she carried for protection - irony. If she was only harmed because someone took her gun and harmed her with it and wouldn’t have otherwise harmed her, irony.
On the other hand, she carried a gun in public, and is later murdered by her husband - not irony. Her having carried the gun did not result in her murder.
They aren’t irrelevant, nor hypotheticals.
I’m saying that this is only ironic if her choices which were intended to make her safer were actually the cause of the harm that befell her. This is the assumption you are working under.
You have not demonstrated why her choice to have carried openly in at least one instance lead to her death. Would she not have been murdered had she not carried a gun?
Owned.
Ah, that was the big problem with this thread. Everyone was advancing *moralistic *and feelings-based arguments.
I think it’s pretty well accepted that a well-trained person with a gun will do better than an unarmed person in an encounter with a large predator that’s trying to eat him, his family, or his livestock.
It pisses me off when people who live in the big city want to pass laws making those of us who don’t less safe.
Wait, your cites are Uncle Beer and a bunch of other gun advocates on the Dope? No offense to any of them, but that’s hardly evidence of the inadequacies of the Kellermann study (or Kellermann studies, since several of his studies are variously mentioned.)
If a study of his has been “withdrawn”, it should be easy enough to provide the citation to the erratum which would have been published by the New England Journal of Medicine. Please cite.
I also note with amusement that Diogenes the Cynic, in one of the threads you linked to, also asked for a cite that Kellermann has been debunked, only to yield a chorus of chirping crickets.
Nut up or shut up, and an echo chamber of Doper gunners doesn’t cut it.
Yeah. A gun - both her choice intended to make her safer and the cause of her harm. How is that not ironic? Because she wasn’t killed by the *same *gun she was wearing at her 5-year-old’s soccer game?
Go on about Kellerman as much as you like (I don’t even know who he is or what he said (but if it’s Jonathan Kellerman, I’d like to go on record as stating that his novels are for shit)), but for you to not acknowledge the irony in this story is a little ridiculous.
This isn’t even about gun-rights at this point for me, but about rhetorical devices.
There is no hard, direct evidence that suitably differentiates the factors involved in gun crime, so people make generalisations about human behaviour. The right to equip yourself with an offensive weapon of lethal force is necessarily bound up with ethics. You can’t abdicate from providing a coherent moral argument as someone who advocates gun availability.
Morality aside, the availability of guns costs the US something in the order of $100 billion a year[sup]1[/sup]. As an avowed fiscal arch-conservative, you disregard your own doctrine. People don’t carry guns because they’ve meaningfully considered the available statistics, risk, and devised a specific cost-benefit analysis. They do so because of their feelings.
- Philip J. Cook, Jens Ludwig Gun Violence: The Real Costs
Invisible Wombat - I agree with you about the laws. Just about all gun laws are unconstitutional, the way I read the 2nd amendment. I’ve been very careful to avoid suggesting there should be gun control laws, because unless there’s another amendment to modify the 2nd, I disagree with it.
But ‘a well trained person with a gun in an encounter with a large predator that’s trying to eat him’? You want a really deadly tool around in case that happens? Should I walk through life with a blowtorch strapped on me in case I get locked in a metal cage?
If you are dealing with wolves trying to eat your sheep, sure, it’s probably smart to have a gun. But I don’t think it makes you or your family *safer *to have a gun.
Similarly I don’t begrudge lumberjacks having chainsaws, or welders carrying blowtorches. But I don’t think chainsaws are going to make people safer overall, nor recommend people carry dynamite strapped in utility belts to soccer games in case we all get trapped in a cave.
Nope. I did quote them because I wanted to show that it’s been handled plenty of times on the boards before (including threads in which you’ve participated)
In addition to this I provided a relatively brief explanation of my own of the basic methodological flaws and the intent behind the doctoring of the data.
And, probably most importantly, I provided 2 cites that extensively criticize the study.
Remember where I said
I can see where you’ve forgotten that. It was only in, oh, I don’t know, the very post that you requested and are replying to.
Oh wait, and just in case you missed it, I also said
See those cites about how Keller’s original data was discarded and how 43:1 was revised to be an order of magnitude less - and even that number is questionable given his clear willingness to use data to mislead.
It’s funny that I already said that you would just ignore this proof and in a future thread go on about Kellerman again. It turns out you IGNORED THE PROOF IN THE VERY POST YOU ASKED FOR.
Owned.
So now we’re back to “HAHA GUN OWNER GETS KILLED BY GUN OH DELICIOUS IRONY HAHAHAHAHA” which is what I (and others) said it was in the first place.
That she was killed by her husband with a gun is a coincidence. If her husband owned a gun independently of her ownership, and her decision to carry the gun publically had no relationship with her husband’s decision to murder her or even have a gun, then there’s no causal relationship between these things. There’s no logical comeuppance. There’s no irony.
If her actions to make herself safe had exclusively lead to the actions with harmed her, and hence, by trying to make herself safe she actually put herself in danger, then there would be irony. That is not the case here. If it is, connect the dots for me.
Gun nut killed by gun. Irony. Period. Coincidence? Maybe. Irony? Oh, hell yeah.
And I’m not guffawing over her corpse, I’m merely pointing out irony where I see it. And, hey what do you know, it’s right here in this story.
Oh, I’d also find it funny if Ted Nugent got killed and eaten by a bear. Or if a member of PETA got killed and eaten by a bear. I guess my bar for absurdly appropriate demises is low.
Gearhead killed by getting hit by car. Pilot dies by plane crashing into his house. If you want to call that irony, it’s pretty weak.
And it wouldn’t have motivated the OP. “HAHA SOME WOMAN I HAVE POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS WITH GOT KILLED, AWESOME HAHA” was the thrust of this thread.
I still think the conclusion of irony is based on the unfounded assumption that her advocacy, ownership, and/or carrying of guns was responsible or a necesary factor in her murder. No information that we have indicates that this is the case, nor is it logically necesary for it to be the case.
I’m with you on this issue – I don’t think it’s particularly ironic, since it wasn’t her choice to carry a gun that led to her being murdered – but you can see the other side if you examine it at a different level of detail and from an anti-gun point of view: if the woman and her husband were what you’d call ‘gun nuts’ and they had a general attitude that being armed makes you safer, then it’s not entirely unreasonable to say that ironically, this attitude is why they had guns in the house, and why when he snapped, she got shot instead of merely beaten up.
On the other hand, so what? When you look at it from that point of view, it simply boils down to the old argument of whether the risks of having guns outweigh the benefits, and nobody is making any particularly new points; there’s nothing about this story that bolsters the anti-gun argument in any new way other than the schadenfreude of a particularly nutty gun nut getting gunned down.
Those cites are gorgeously stupid. I love the idea that you can qualify an odds ratio of 3.0 as “weak or non-existant”. That’s just fucking retarded. I mean, that is bone stupid. Whoever wrote that knows jack shit about what he’s saying. Una Persson, you give the impression of being able to interpret empirical papers. Can you provide some clarification for SenorBeef about the legitimacy of such a claim? Perhaps you can review his cite: Disarming the Data Doctors: How To Debunk The “Public Health” Basis For “Gun Control” | GOA overall for SenorBeef. I’ll cut a few more choice bits from it later on.
Hey, you fucking moron. First of all, saying that there were 43 cases for every one is not the same as an odds ratio. Wow, are you stupid. Secondly, those were two different papers with different data sets. When I publish a paper using another data set, but looking at the same topic, it doesn’t mean I’ve “withdrawn” the first. It’s different, see?
In fact, when I get similar findings from different data sets, it provides confirmation. When different investigators find similar findings using different data sets, it adds to the confirmation, making an even more compelling case.
This is just too delicious. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Reminds me of how the Browns were going to the Superbowl because they could pass block the shit out of people! Awesome!
How about, ‘gearhead who drove her car up to the sidelines at soccer games, and who was a media-covered advocate of allowing cars to be driven offroad on public property, got run over by her husband who drove his car through the front door into the computer room’?
Her advocacy for driving cars offroad on public property doesn’t have anything to do with her husband driving his car into their house, but c’mon. Isn’t that the stuff good sick comedy is made of?
Then you’re at least 43:1 times more likely to die by living alone or renting an apartment than living with other people or owning a house too, right?
Even the revised data is flawed.
Yes, when anti-gun people admoninish “you’re 43 times more likely to kill a family member with your gun than a criminal” that’s exactly what they’re saying.
This is also clearly what Kellerman intended it to say, since he designed the study to support this conclusion.
If you come out with 2 different papers on the same subject where the results differ by over an order of magnitude, does this not suggest that your original analysis was flawed?
Uh, what? The issue here is that the findings were massively different.
You are a liar.
First, you look like a complete retard bringing up an argument in a football smack thread from 2 years ago as an example of me not knowing my way around a gun debate.
Secondly, I have never said anything remotely similar to what you just claimed that I said. Find it. Quote me. Or retract the claim. Put up or shut up.
In fact, in the past, I specifically asked you to do exactly that, since you were lying about what I had said at the time. You were unable to do so.
This is a pattern with you. You come up with the same lies in new threads, knowing they are lies, and refuse to let any amount of proof change your mind.
Prove you’re not a liar. I’ll even help you out: This is the thread it would be in, if I said anything like that.
You asked for evidence to debunk Kellerman’s claims. You know it’s bullshit, but want to make me through the process anyway. You needle me until I do. So I do. Then you dismiss it without good reason, which I expected you to do. You will have learned nothing new from this experience. You are incapable of learning anything new that does not fit in with what you want to think of the world.
It’s funny that you should bring up the old example of the football argument we had, which you lost decisively and should be embarassed about, except that in your mind, since you have a great ability to believe what you want rather than reality, it was actually a win for you and a sore point for me. This is a good example of the sort of person you are. And again, you are a liar. Prove me wrong here. Quote me where I said anything like you just claimed I said.
This analogy is poor. Carrying guns is not an inherently dangerous prospect like driving a car on sidewalks is. She did not advocate the murder of your spouse.
She also was not murdered by her husband carrying a gun publically.
I’m clearly a gun rights advocate. If I were to be shot during a mugging or something, would you find it ironic and funny? OH WHAT COMEUPPANCE THAT WOULD BE, SHOWN THE ERROR IN MY WAYS, etc.?