This analogy will not go over well, but give a try to considering it:
“A civil rights advocate was killed by a black person in a mugging, HAHHAHA”
Yes, I’m sure you’re groaning.
But think about how this would play over with a racist crowd who thinks civil rights advocacy is for stupid, backwards people who have screwed up values. Even though the situation is not ironic or comeuppance, they would view it that way, because in their minds “well duh, you give black people more freedom and status in society and they’re gonna be emboldened to kill more people” - they would see what they want to see, rather than what’s logical.
The person would come to the conclusion that there was comeuppance here because a person who opposed their views was coincidentally killed by something related to the issue. Many gun control advocates hold similarly strong biases against gun owners and/or gun advocates.
But in reality, the example’s advocacy for civil rights played no role in her getting killed. It was just a coincidence that someone black killed her. It didn’t prove that she was somehow wrong about black people deserving equal rights.
Now, I’m not saying that gun control advocates are equivelant to racists or anything like that. I’m using the analogy because they’re both issues that are extremely polarizing and that people get extremely emotionally charged over, and since I’m sure you’re all in the non-racist camp, it flips the roles of the bias so that you may be better able to see it.
You want to see irony here because you are convinced to the core that she was wrong in her beliefs and you see comeuppance. You want to see her as the example of how you are oh so smart and your opposition is oh so dumb. But there’s is no necesary logical connection here between her gun ownership and advocacy and her death. It could’ve happened regardless of her stance on the issue.
But that doesn’t matter - this issue is deeply satisfying because your biases are so strong that you see comeuppance where there isn’t any.
An avowed fiscal conservative who has been the victim of violent crime, including rape, each instance of which would have been prevented if I had had a gun to defend myself at the time. In addition, my position on gun control, while pro-gun, is certainly not absolutist. I’ve been at odds with many pro-gun people on the SDMB because I’ve pushed an idea of mandatory safety and competence training, as well as more restrictions on who can purchase or possess firearms (including disqualifying those with violent misdemeanor and/or juvenile records). I’m also anti-hunting, for a large part. It’s therefore not accurate to imply that my position on the matter of firearms ownership is coincident with incurring whatever current cost to Society exists.
bup, I don’t know what point you want to make. Find a different target, please.
Well…it’s a judgment call which is dependent upon study methodology, but an odds ratio of 0.333-3.000 is often classified as being “weak” in epidemiology papers I read. But “weak” by itself does not by any means imply “none” (and I do not like adjectives to describe odds ratios because they can be deceptive - 1.0 is weak and 2.999 is weak, yet the two are clearly not the same…) and a value of “3.0” is close enough to mid-range to being classified significant IMO.
Another thing to consider is the difference between odds ratio and relative risk - an odds ratio of 3.0 results in a lower relative risk; the exact number escapes me for the study in question.
Driving cars on sidewalks that are crowded with people is inherently dangerous and bad.
Having a gun in a holster on your side is not inherently dangerous or bad. Is the act of a police officer having a sidearm equivelant to driving on a sidewalk?
It “bounced off” because the analogy makes no sense.
By the way, she didn’t advocate murder, either, in case that wasn’t clear. I know it’s a subtle distinction amongst people with your mindset.
What I was trying to say is that we don’t all live in Big City, U.S.A.
If you’d really like me to find stats on how many people have been killed by large predators (not to mention moose and bison) within 50 or 60 miles of my house, I’ll try to dig them up, but it definitely happens. If you ranch or farm around here, I can almost guarantee that if you haven’t had livestock eaten by predators, you know someone who has.
Guns around here are tools. They’re used to defend people and property, to put meat in the freezer for winter, and (yes) for recreational target shooting. But when we talk about “protection” around here, we’re not talking about protecting ourselves from gang members and muggers.
This is why states have control over their own gun laws.
Gun advocates’ principal argument is that gun ownership provides a measure of self-defence. In this instance gun ownership failed to provide this expected (though not necessary) outcome. Therefore the incident was ironic. Ironic circumstances are not necessarily funny. They often are, but not in this case. Irony says nothing about whether something is a due or not, just that it was unexpected.
I give up on the irony thing, by the way. I don’t care at this point whether you think it’s irony or not. I’ve made my case. Plenty of other people have agreed with me, so I’m not just unilaterally not getting it.
I will, however, expect Hentor The Barbarian to either back up the claim he made about what I said, or retract it, since he made the same needling demands of me, and I want him to have to admit he’s a liar so he stops bringing up his misinterpretation/lies about 2 year old unrelated arguments into threads where they are irrelevant.
I don’t see what’s so ironic… so he sold his watch to buy her combs and she sold her hair to buy him a watch chain! So what? There’s nothing ironic about it! If I sell my watch, are you going to start a thread just to say “HAHAHAHA you sold your watch!!!”?
I had a concealed carry permit and carried at times. Ironic then?
What does your level of advocacy for guns have to be for it then to be ironic when you are murdered?
And not even the most ardent defender of gun rights would ever say this, because it’s patently ridiculous.
Wait a second. I own guns. I’ve carried guns. I’m under no impression that guns are a cure-all for any threat that may face me. WOULDN’T IT BE LIKE SUPER IRONIC IF SOMEONE SHOT ME THEN? CAUSE LIKE… I’M PRETTY SURE I CAN’T BE HURT SO LONG AS I GET TO HOLD MY SWEET, SWEET GUNS!
And at the same time, they also compensate for my small penis.
Obviously there are different degrees of irony. Charlton Heston getting shot would be more ironic. You? Somewhat less so.
Patently it is irrational, but still people are irrational.
It doesn’t matter what your motivation is. A Hornby enthusiast getting run over by a train would be ironic. They might well be aware of this risk, but it still fits the criteria of irony.
I do not believe I am irrational, and furthermore I am the only person with all the facts of the instances at their disposal to draw such conclusion(s).
You have no evidence that the woman in the story here thought that carrying guns rendered her immune to harm.
Well, alright. I’m willing to admit that level of irony, as I’ve said. We’re back to “haha, gun owner gut killed by a gun”.
As far as Una goes - are you saying there are no instances in which having a gun actually does offer you the ability to protect yourself? If not, then why would you assume that her judgement that she could have used a gun in self defense in those instances is flawed? She was there, she knows what happened.
More like “gun owner got killed by a gun that was kept at her house for her and her family’s protection.” Slightly more ironic than you’re giving credit for (but still not all that ironic).
Completely agree. Just like chainsaws are tools and table saws are tools.
I also get that unlike chainsaws and table saws, they’re constitutionally protected.
People that are carrying the equivalent of a chainsaw on their belts, and taking the chainsaws to soccer games, and who think they’re just like real loggers and are protecting their families and the American way of life by carrying their chainsaws around, who then get chainsawed to death by a husband who also believes everybody should carry a chainsaw, are going to get laughed at by me.
And people who don’t see that carrying a chainsaw around and marrying a logger who always carries his work chainsaw around with him even when he’s not logging, and who one days snaps and chainsaws his wife to death with one of the couple’s many chainsaws, could possibly be related, are deluded. And people who insist this is an emotional argument, or that I’m attacking your constitutional right to carry a chainsaw, because I’m telling you that more chainsaws means you are more, not less, likely to die, are doofuses.
Carry your chainsaw, whether you’re a logger or not. I don’t care. If you are a logger, bring it home from the job site and keep it in your house with your family. I don’t care. Believe that carrying a chainsaw makes you safer. I don’t care. Believe that all the other chainsaw deaths are coincidences and that those people are different than you. I don’t care.
Taken literally, Una’s comment indicates that having a gun would have prevented these crimes. More reasonably they may have prevented these crimes. Arguably I’m being unfairly semantic, and that is what she did mean. Of course a gun can be used in circumstances of self defence, and I don’t deny anyone the right to use lethal force to meet that same threat, in extremis. However, I don’t believe that equipping a population with weapons, as a whole, makes people more safe, or reduces crime.
If everyone was coldly-rational and dispassionate in their use of firearms for the purposes of lethal (or sub-lethal) force, and only did so in circumstances of critical endangerment, then there would be an argument for their ownership. This is clearly at odds with reality, where guns are used irrationally by human beings, who are by there very nature prone to incidents of irrationality. Providing an easy means for lethal force to irrational individuals, is itself irrational.
Maybe it is ironic and giggle-worthy any time a husband murders his wife. After all, by marrying him she basically said “this is the one man I choose to trust, he would never hurt me.” Oops! LOL. Got what was coming to her.
On the other hand, owning a gun is not saying “I am invincible.” You are putting words in her mouth in order to justify reveling in her murder. I have no problem with that in itself, but the misuse of the term “irony” is annoying.
I can only find the abstract of the 1986 Kellermann study, but not the full text.
However, here’s the description of the sample used in the 1986 study, taken from the abstract. “To study the epidemiology of deaths involving firearms kept in the home, we reviewed all the gunshot deaths that occurred in King County, Washington (population 1,270,000), from 1978 through 1983.”
Here’s how they drew the sample for the 1993 Kellermann study: “All homicides involving residents of King County or Shelby County that occurred between August 23, 1987, and August 23, 1992, and all homicides involving residents of Cuyahoga County that occurred between January 1, 1990, and August 23, 1992, were reviewed to identify those that took place in the home of the victim.”
It’s not “revised” data. It’s a completely different data set. Can you understand what a different data set means? Do you get that different people were involved in handgun deaths between 1978 and 1983 from those involved in handgun deaths between 1987 and 1992?
Senor Beef’s preferred author goes on at great length about the bivariate associations of the 1993 paper, and then describes the multivariate analyses as follows: “Kellermann’s Table 4 shows the results of additional mathematical massage of the data.” (bolding mine). It is standard practice to conduct multivariate analyses, because the bivariate analyses are simply how each variable relates to the outcome variable independently of all the other variables. Leaving the analyses without presenting anything other than bivariate associations would be useless and prone to giving the wrong impression. It would be like saying that there is a bivariate association of storks on the roofs of houses with new babies in them and there is also a bivariate association of warmer fires burning in the homes with new babies.
What multivariate analyses tell you is what the association between a predictor and the outcome is after accounting for the relationship between all the other predictors and the outcome. It allows you to control for other things and rule out spurious associations. Kellermann’s 1993 table four shows that even after accounting for the significant contributions of risk from things like whether the home was rented or not (which is associated with an odds ratio of 4.4), the presence of a gun in the home is associated with an OR of 2.7. So, renting versus owning is associated with a 4.4 greater likelihood for homicide in the home in that data set. I don’t know where you’re getting 43 to 1 from, but it doesn’t appear to be from Kellermann.
I don’t know who is saying that. I do know that several different studies have been conducted which all conclude that the likelihood of death due to violent crime is increased for those with a firearm in the home.
[quote[This is also clearly what Kellerman intended it to say, since he designed the study to support this conclusion.[/quote]
You’re talking out of your ass here. You really have no idea what is being said, but only what you’re being told. Perhaps Una Persson can explain it to you, should he or she follow up on this.
You don’t understand the statistics you are claiming to be comparing here, but the odds ratio is not the relative statistic is not the proportion of the descriptive statistic.
No. Your understanding of them is very limited, and is based on some selected and stupid reviews of them, which you have chosen to believe because they fit your desired interpretation. They in fact announce their intended outcome in their very titles.
Here, by the way are several other studies on the matter (Una I do hope you’ll take a look at these, and if you are in fact able, will explain them to the others here as needed):
Wiebe DJ. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home: a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med. Jun 2003;41(6):771-782.
Cummings P, Koepsell TD, Grossman DC, Savarino J, Thompson RS. The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide. Am J Public Health. Jun 1997;87(6):974-978.
Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ. Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol. Nov 15 2004;160(10):929-936.
So, the results from a number of studies using different data sets are converging around an odds ratio between 1.4 and 2.7. That’s a nice tight consistent band, suggesting that a gun in the home is associated with about a 40% to 170% increase in the likelihood of homicide if a gun is in the home.
Pwned, as you kids might say these days.
Of course my quote about you and the Browns was hyperbole. You never claimed that the Browns would win the Superbowl because of their pass blocking. You were just really, really excited about their ability to pass block. I mean, really excited! I tried to argue that pass blocking and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, but you weren’t having it.
