# Guns: Newsweek proposes a compromise **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345 "2015-07-16T18:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 205
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/205 "2015-07-21T22:42:14Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > What about [this](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426) study, from the Annals of Internal Medicine, entitled “The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, which concludes: This is not necessarily a study, but more of an aggregation of past studies, including the one you referred to earlier. In that sense, it suffers in some repsects from those same similar weaknesses, as well as others from various other studies it included. Some of the more prominent studies included in this analysis was the 1986 and 1993 Kellerman studies which concluded that varying rates of increased risk of homicide and other bad events ranging from 43 times to 2.7 times, with each of these figures laughable when the study methodology is examined, like having a control group dissimilar to the test group, not controling for guns brought into the home from another source, and finding that many other factors presented greater risk factors than firearm existence. Ultimately I don’t think anyone disputed that firearms present a risk - of course they do. As I said before, a more meaningful question is whether those risks are outweighed by the benefits. This study also makes no attempt to address that question. > [@](#): > > You misunderstand the conclusion. The overwhelming majority of times that I use a car, I use it for its intended purpose. The majority of times a gun is used in the home, it is not used for its intended purpose. Cite? Define used, if I have a gun in every single room of the house 24 hours a day for decades but none are fired in the house, have they been used? Are you distinguishing between use by the resident non-prohibited person vs. others? > [@](#): > > So why don’t you actually make some attempt to support your argument and go find one. What argument of mine do you think isn’t being supported? I’d be glad to oblige. > [@](#): > > The word “regulation” has been co-opted by gun enthusiasts. Anybody who wants to regulate the gun industry can be attacked for being a “gun grabber”. I don’t think the article in the OP proposes a good solution. This analogy doesn’t really work and here is why: When gun control advocates call something reasonable, the argument then becomes whether it is reasonable or not. When a person proposes regulation, the argument is not whether it is in fact regulation. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345)._