Guns and National health

[Kable]

@PhillyGuy

I never said that.

That was the argument that the article you cited cited. Either way it indicates the Australian gun ban did nothing to lessen death by suicide.

The Times reporters would likely have been glad to report that the right wing is turning the US into an armed camp if that was the case.

Actually I misread the Times article the first time. They found individual gun ownership increased 2% since 2010, they just claimed it was insignificant but did not give their P-value or confidence interval. So they don’t really contradict Gallup but rather help confirm Gallup.

I am suggesting that the General Social Survey has a better reputation among sampling experts.

Good, then Gallup should feel a bit vindicated.

Anecdotally, sure, there are more stories of violent crime being stopped by the homeowner having a gun than by acting like a cool Joe camel. But when it comes to objective evidence, in the real world, where the bad guy is liable to draw first, both smoking and gun ownership are risky.

OK, so assuming you were subject to a home invasion, would you rather have be able to draw 2nd while holed up in your home or not be able to draw at all. Suppose the intruder has a knife, would you rather face him with another knife or a gun? Suppose you were a woman.

What happened in Australia was a test for the thesis that guns make law-abiding people safer. The government bought back 20 percent of guns in newly illegal categories. It strains credulity that criminals were giving back their most effective guns. By the pro-gun theory, Australia should now be overrun with violent criminals who can outgun ordinary citizens. Except that it never happened. The same evidence Drs. McPhedran and Baker used to show the violent death decline didn’t substantially accelerate with gun confiscation also shows that fewer lawfully owned guns don’t strip away protection.

That’s a great way for you gun prohibitionists to spin it. You want to show that gun control decreases crime and violent death, so you pass a law, limiting citizens freedoms, and nothing good comes of it. So you just say nothing bad enough came of it and say you were right all along. Good job.

The reason is that guns in the house don’t protect; they are a risk factor.

Your link requires membership.

[PhillyGuy]

@Kable

Your link requires membership.

Here’s the same article as a no-registration-required pdf:

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

[Kable]

@PhillyGuy

Here’s the same article as a no-registration-required pdf:

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

OK, I’ve read that one already. It’s a cherry picked review paper, not a study.

[Kable]

And guns in the home do protect. I’m proof of that, and I can show you videos of guns doing the same for others. Do you really doubt that?

[Fear_Itself]

@Kable

And guns in the home do protect. I’m proof of that, and I can show you videos of guns doing the same for others. Do you really doubt that?

I doubt it. The plural of anecdote is not data. More people die by gun misadventure than are saved from crime. Guns are a net destroyer of life, your personal experience notwithstanding.

[rat_avatar]

Yes, notice how all their “stats” are based on "

Violent Deaths Among 5- to 14-Year-
Olds: United States Versus Other
High-Income OECD Countries, 2003a"

They do this because if they move up to 15-19 year olds the stats wouldn’t “favor” the highest gun owning states.

The 15 States with the highest average levels of household gun ownership were, in order, as
follows: WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT. The 6 states with the lowest
average gun levels were, in order, as follows: HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY.

Note…high poverty, rural states vs. more urban richer states.

Also..doing statistics on states where there were 8 firearm murders total for the year…when places with similar population numbers like DC had 113…yet at that time very few people legally owned firearms in DC.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Note the strong regional and population based bias in the numbers vs “gun ownership”

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf

State vs. homicide rate per 100K people

WY, 2.0
MT, 3.2
AK, 3.2
SD, 3.6
AR, 6.3
WV, 4.9
AL, 7.1
ID, 1.5
MS, 6.9
ND, 2.0
KY, 4.3
TN, 7.4
LA, 12.3
MO, 6.6
VT. 1.3

HI, 1.8
NJ, 3.7
MA, 2.7
RI, 3.0
CT, 3.0
NY. 4.0
DC 24.2

See, the states that your “cite” used…the high and low is not nearly that clear, and VT/ID are lower than all of the “low gun ownership” states except for HI, and if you pull it out ND and WY are added in. All of those states have rates better then NY, NJ and have similar rates to most of western Europe.

So once again, you have provided information that is crafted to fit your world view but that in reality doesn’t show any real pattern.

[Kable]

@Fear_Itself

I doubt it. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Just one anecdote is enough to prove Philly Guy wrong.

More people die by gun misadventure than are saved from crime.

Cite?

[rat_avatar]

Alcoholic liver disease death rates are similar to the homicide rate way more risky than firearms if you make it to
your 30s.

Luckily both causes are very avoidable for the most part. Drink in moderation (or abstain) and don’t do/sell drugs or hang out with violent people and your risks are truly tiny.

Cite: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

[PhillyGuy]

@rat_avatar

State vs. homicide rate per 100K people . . .

There are two main factors I would look at: Means availability, and culture. My hypothesis is that they are both supremely important.

If we could control for culture, the logic of your position is that means availability would make people safer, and there would be less violent death. Whereas the logic of my position is that when you control for culture, means availability, measured by the legal gun ownership rate, would result in more violent death.

We can’t completely control for culture. But there’s one quite relevant, easily measurable, factor when it comes to violence. In some cultures, people tend, relatively, towards homicide, and in others, suicide. In the US, you’ve got a state like Maryland, with more murders than suicide, and a state like Wyoming, where there are maybe 7 times more suicides than murders.

There’s a easy way to control for the cultural tendency to shoot someone else as opposed to shooting yourself. Just add all the firearms deaths together. That’s when you can start testing my gun-are-dangerous thesis against your guns-protect-us claim. And the second chart here, which, yes, I have posted before, is what you get:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/
Result: Strong correlation between gun ownership and violent death. In Louisiana they shoot each other. In Wyoming, themselves. Either way, a high gun ownership rate is associated with violent death.

Are there other cultural factors? Sure. But the point is that when you start controlling for culture, the curve goes exactly in the wrong way for your POV.

[rat_avatar]

@PhillyGuy

There are two main factors I would look at: Means availability, and culture. My hypothesis is that they are both supremely important.

If we could control for culture, the logic of your position is that means availability would make people safer, and there would be less violent death. Whereas the logic of my position is that when you control for culture, means availability, measured by the legal gun ownership rate, would result in more violent death.

We can’t completely control for culture. But there’s one quite relevant, easily measurable, factor when it comes to violence. In some cultures, people tend, relatively, towards homicide, and in others, suicide. In the US, you’ve got a state like Maryland, with more murders than suicide, and a state like Wyoming, where there are maybe 7 times more suicides than murders.

There’s a easy way to control for the cultural tendency to shoot someone else as opposed to shooting yourself. Just add all the firearms deaths together. That’s when you can start testing my gun-are-dangerous thesis against your guns-protect-us claim. And the second chart here, which, yes, I have posted before, is what you get:

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun-error/
Result: Strong correlation between gun ownership and violent death. In Louisiana they shoot each other. In Wyoming, themselves. Either way, a high gun ownership rate is associated with violent death.

Are there other cultural factors? Sure. But the point is that when you start controlling for culture, the curve goes exactly in the wrong way for your POV.

And here you go back to your special pleading again with a huge dose of unsubstantiated claims and misleading charts.

You can parrot data over and over again but it isn’t going to make it any more true.

But if you are really going to claim that people who kill themselves would have been murders had they grown up among other friends and family you really need to provide a cite vs. your unsubstantiated claims.

And even IF they were true it would be better to spend money on changing the culture vs. banning items, which will result in LESS services reaching those populations. Those physical devices are easly smuggled in, easily produced on the black market. Even when they are removed from the general public as in the UK, Australia and other places it does not have a measurable effect on suicide trends.

But I am going to give up, you are obviously not a serious poster and you are wasting my time and I will remember to thank you when the republicans take over a super majority of the legislature in the next election.

If you feel you can produce an argument that is not purely dogmatic and produce evidence to even suggest it is true I may revisit the idea.

Otherwise I suggest you consider posting purely in IMHO.