And that’s also because the media will quickly broadcast gun accident injuries and deaths, but not the defensive uses of people protecting themselves or their property.
Bullshit. Just ask Kable. He’s got dozens of YouTube clips of newscasts covering defensive gun uses.
It’s a bit sad when, in stats class, they spend the whole time playing with themselves in the corner.
I love you, Hentor. Let’s never fight again!
I’m not saying there are none out there. Accidents and injuries are over-reported. Defensive gun use is under-reported.
Well is it at least finally clear to you that there are more defensive gun uses than accidental gun deaths?
No. The anecdotes demonstrate that many incidents are covered by the news. They don’t show how many there are in total.
Also note that you have switched from injuries to deaths.
Why are you excluding accidental gun injuries? Because they just don’t count? Because gun owners shouldn’t be held accountable when their negligence only maims a child?
Oops sorry I meant accidental firearm injury.
Using the most anti-gun estimates by Hemenway versus the CDC’s estimates of accidental gun injury. There are more defensive gun uses than there are accidental gun injuries. Right?
If Hemenway wrong or is the CDC wrong? Are the Hemenway numbers based on anecdote or is his research only valid if they support your position? Are the CDC estimates wrong or are their numbers only valid if they support your position?
Sorry, I meant to say that there are more defensive gun uses than there are accidental gun injuries.
I don’t know where you got that idea.
By comparing the numbers produced by the CDC and the numbers produced by Hemenway. Have you been paying attention?
At the risk of stating the obvious, there’s just no way to know what injuries or deaths were prevented by those “defensive gun uses,” so it’s going to be apples and oranges. It’s better (though still necessarily flawed, due to confounding variables) to compare two otherwise similar jurisdictions with different gun laws, or the same jurisdiction before and after a change in gun laws.
For which, see about a dozen SDMB threads, for starters.
Thats the not the point. There is a population of people who think that guns are of nominal or minimal utility relative to the cost of owning them.
When you have estimates of defensive gun use that range from 100,000 to 2.5 million. The fact that there are 700 accidental gun deaths and about 15,000 accidental gun injuries start to look less one sided. And thee argument from the anti-gun side of the debate has frequently been to dismiss the notion of any useful purpose to having a gun, they act as if the only thing that can happen is that your kid shoots himself in the face.
Again, I would ask where you are getting the affirmative endorsement of DGU from Hemenway.
I would also caution you about attributing findings to “the CDC.” Unless you have a specific publication from the CDC making an assertion, it probably isn’t “the CDC.” I thought we went over this.
The bottom line is that DGU are an extremely ephemeral target, which is really what Hemenway has repeatedly argued. See, for instance The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses. The issue he addresses is the problem of measuring rare events and the implications of even very minor misspecification. He concludes: “For example, if we accept a 5% possibility that as few as 1.4% of respondents were randomly misclassified, the 95% confidence interval for accuracy of the 2.5 million self-defense survey estimate would be 0 to 2.5 million actual uses.”
And in another paper of his, he states: "However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude. " Gun Use in the United States.
So my position is that we do not have any good estimate so far of defensive gun use. Unless Hemenway is pointing to a specific estimate that was derived using methodology that avoids the problems he has identified, then even his own guesstimate would be unsound.
It’s the science, not the man. Again, unless there are sound, reliable estimates, arguing that “Hemenway says” is a bit like arguing against “Darwinism” instead of the science behind evolution.
double post
Where do I say that Hemenway affirmative endorses DGU? I think you might have some straw colored glasses regarding what pro-gun people say.
Are you asking me where Hemenway concludes 100,000 DGU/year?
Wisqars isn’t CDC?
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:77, topic:655330”]
Where do I say that Hemenway affirmative endorses DGU? I think you might have some straw colored glasses regarding what pro-gun people say.
Are you asking me where Hemenway concludes 100,000 DGU/year?[\quote]Yes, that is in fact what I’m asking.
Yes, it is. What does it have to do with DGU? It is Web based Injury Statistics Queries and Reporting. Are you claiming that was your source for DGU?
As to your Wikipedia cite, follow the links for their sourcing. One is the “Myth of Defensive Gun Use” paper I cited above! The other does not, of course, have an estimate of DGU from Hemenway.
Once again, you’ve been told something that turns out to be wrong.
Unfortunately, it was a lot worse for that six year old.