I pit the parents who let this happen [6-year old shot in head and killed]

[septimus]

@Odesio

It something only kills .02 out of 100,000 it tells me that we don’t have a serious problem here.

Since we’re already in BBQ Pit, let me mention that I get very annoyed when right-wing idiots(*) pull numbers out of their ass.

(Odesio, if you’re just very stupid with arithmetic, instead of deliberately prevaricating, I apologize. If you’re a left-winger who loves guns I do not apologize – I use the term “right-wing idiot” in a very broad sense. )

The 0.02 out of 100,000 doesn’t pass any sniff test at all.

Figures that do have a credible source behind them:
24% of adolescent deaths are due to homicide or suicide.
1% of adolescent deaths are due to gun accidents.
Among ages 0-14, almost 1 in 100,000 in U.S.A. dies annually due to gun homicide specifically. This is more than ten times the figure in countries like Canada or Italy.

(*) – John Mace posted bullshit in a subthread about Standard Oil and refused to provide cite when asked. Sam Stone deliberately inflates numbers to serve his argument. Et cetera.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Yes, that is in fact what I’m asking.Yes, it is.

I see the wiki article i cite to says

@wiki

Low end estimates by Hemenway cite approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.

Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys

Hemenway seems to endorse the results of the NVCS which frequently estimates DGU at around 100,000.

Hemenway has offered it as a plausible alternatuive to the 2.5 million proposed by Kleck.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

Kleck points out flaws in Hemenway’s argument.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

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?

No I am claiming that if you want to determine whether gun ownership should be precluded by accidental gun deaths (or injuries) then you should compare DGU with accidental gun deatha dn injury (I am getting the number of accidental gun death or injury from Wisqars)

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.

So are articles by Kleck, Cook, and Lott.

Once again, you’ve been told something that turns out to be wrong.

You keep saying this but other than the mistaken belief that CCWs had a ridiculouslym low rate of crime, I don’t know what youa re referring to. You simply declare victory, and thats probably not very convincing to anyyone but you.

Are you under the impression that you have not been corrected on things during this debate?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I see the wiki article i cite to says

Are you not reading what I’ve already said. I already showed you that the Wiki cites for that assertion lead to sources that do not actually support that. One is called the “Myth of Defensive Gun Uses.” The other is to the link you have also provided below. Follow me…

Gun use in the United States: results from two national surveys - PMC

Hemenway seems to endorse the results of the NVCS which frequently estimates DGU at around 100,000.

I also already cited this paper for you. Here is what Hemenway says in that paper:

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses.

So, you’re not only not reading what I’ve already written, you’re not even reading your own cites.

Hemenway has offered it as a plausible alternatuive to the 2.5 million proposed by Kleck.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

No, he doesn’t. If you believe otherwise, please cite where he does. His whole point is to illustrate the implausibility of Kleck’s estimates. He says in conclusion

@Hemenway

Self-report surveys of rare events easily lead to huge overestimates [Page 1444] of the true incidence of such events, particularly if the event in question has some potential social desirability. Researchers who claim that such survey incidence data are accurate must show how they have eliminated the enormous problem of false positives. Kleck and Gertz do not accept, let alone meet, this burden of proof. Their survey methodology does not ensure a Specificity rate of well over 99%. Attempts to determine the external validity of their estimates only buttress the presumption of massive overestimation. The conclusion seems inescapable: the Kleck and Gertz survey results do not provide reasonable estimates about the total amount of self-defense gun use in the United States.

You keep saying this but other than the mistaken belief that CCWs had a ridiculouslym low rate of crime, I don’t know what youa re referring to. You simply declare victory, and thats probably not very convincing to anyyone but you.

There was that. There was also your charge that a peer review of the CDC was critical of them. That was false. You asserted that the CDC argued that correlation equals causation. That was false. You asserted that the NRA-driven restrictions on funding applied only to the CDC. That was false.

You are wrong here as well. It’s doubly problematic since you’re not only wrong, you’re ignoring the corrective evidence you’ve been provided.

Are you under the impression that you have not been corrected on things during this debate?

In fact, I am.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Are you not reading what I’ve already said. I already showed you that the Wiki cites for that assertion lead to sources that do not actually support that. One is called the “Myth of Defensive Gun Uses.” The other is to the link you have also provided below. Follow me…

Why don’t you read the Kleck response to Hemenway’s mealymouthed half conclusions about DGU.

I also already cited this paper for you. Here is what Hemenway says in that paper:So, you’re not only not reading what I’ve already written, you’re not even reading your own cites. No, he doesn’t. If you believe otherwise, please cite where he does. His whole point is to illustrate the implausibility of Kleck’s estimates. He says in conclusion

So you’re saying that because he in fact has never admitted that there are ANY reliable numbers of DGU because he casts this shadow of doubt over every survey and paper ever done on the subject of DGU by saying that surveys of rare events are unreliable? OK, if thats the way you read it then by your rationale Hemenway has not admitted a low end of 100,00. I will just go with the DOJ estimates of a million DGU per year. I was trying to find the lowest number I could find unless you have can provide me with a lower estimate.

There was that. There was also your charge that a peer review of the CDC was critical of them. That was false.

I think you use phrases like signifcant and peer review differently than I do.

I thought we had cleared that up. I thought that contemporaneous criticism of the paper by other people in the field was peer review. I understand now that just getting peer reviewed means that it was peer reviewed (which seems like a silly standard but it is what it is I suppose).

You asserted that the CDC argued that correlation equals causation. That was false.

It was a paper funded by the CDC. The writers of the paper used the correlation as a basis of the argument against guns without any proof of causation. You keep looking for ways tyo make yourself right on that point. You are acting like a Republican.

You asserted that the NRA-driven restrictions on funding applied only to the CDC. That was false.

That was in response to the argument that the NRA had restricted all funding of gun research. So the fact that the NRA had subsequently shut down research by the CDC’s parent organization is a stupid nitpick.

In fact, I am.

So do you think the AWB of 1994 was effective in reducing gun violence? Significantly (as you use the term)?

Is a pool in the home more or less dangerous for young children than guns in the home?

Does the NRA get the majority of its money from gun manufacturers?

Was the NRA botcott of Smith & Wesson at the behest of all the other gun manufacturers?

And thats just in your recent posting history.

Do you still think you have never been corrected on things during this debate?

You have this habit of signing your posts with “and you were wrong on A, B and C so that makes my argument even stronger” type of statement. I’d like to think we have faought ignorance on both sides of this debate but apparently all the ignorance was only on my side :rolleyes:

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

:rolleyes:

That’s a lot of bullshit. Let’s keep this simple. You’ve repeatedly asserted that Hemenway has produced an estimate of DGUs. Usually this is in the context of something like ‘Even antigun researcher Hemenway allows that there are 100,000 defensive gun uses.’

Here’s you from just above, in this thread:

Using the most anti-gun estimates by Hemenway […]

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?

Suddenly instead of a guru, he is now “mealymouthed.” Talk about switching your tune when something doesn’t support your position.

Do you acknowledge that you were flat wrong to purport that Hemenway has endorsed some particular estimate of defensive gun uses? If not, please provide me with the cite and quote specifically where he has.

Otherwise, you’re just wrong. Again.

[Sailboat]

Heh, I’m posting in a gun thread! Mostly just to amuse myself, as anything I say will be lost in the uproar.

@Dallas_Jones

It does not sound like this young man has been taught proper gun safety, respect, and attitude. His mental issues may impair his understanding of what is safe, and precautions should be in place. As in, he should never be able to access a weapon without supervision. Please continue to work with your family, in a constructive way on this issue.

Note, however, that the problem with teaching a 9-year-old anything is that, over the next few years, he will undergo fundamental changes to his mental capacity, emotions, sense of responsibility, feelings of rebellion, ability to empathize with others, and overall ability to process information and act on it. In short, he may well be an entirely different person one hunting season after you’re sure he’s trained.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

:rolleyes:

That’s a lot of bullshit. Let’s keep this simple.

So you don’t like it when you have your errors thown back in your face. just because you never admit your errors don’t mean they’re not errors, it just makes you obstinate.

I on the other hand have admitted errors relatively readily.

So, have you ever been wrong in this debate? I mean you state pretty confidently that you don’t think you have ever been wrong. And at the same time it is pretty clear that you have been.

I’m just saying that you should be careful before you go around trying to undercut people because they were wrong about something or another in the past. Even if you were never wrong about anything in your life, it is poisonous to productive debate to constantly repeat errors made in the past because it makes people reluctant to admit error if they know you’re going to bring it up over and over again throughout the debate. I admitted I was wrong about the CCW when you asked me to provide a cite and I couldn’t find one and you must have mentioned that error half a dozen times as if that past mistake makes you more credible. At the same time, when other point out your mistakes, you tend to just drop the subject, to ignore the issue hoping we will all forget.

You’ve repeatedly asserted that Hemenway has produced an estimate of DGUs. Usually this is in the context of something like ‘Even antigun researcher Hemenway allows that there are 100,000 defensive gun uses.’

I think he has, you disagree because he caveats all estimates of DGU by everyone but I think he endorses the NVCS numbers at leasst tacitly.

Suddenly instead of a guru, he is now “mealymouthed.”

Where do I call him a guru? I think he’s generally full of shit and does research with a specific result in mind. He is not an impartial academic on the issue.

[quote]
Do you acknowledge that you were flat wrong to purport that Hemenway has endorsed some particular estimate of defensive gun uses?[/qutoe]

No. I think he has tacitly endorsed the NVCS numbers.

Do you acknowledge that you have been wrong about a boatload of shit without having people constantly remind you of those errors in every other response?

If not, please provide me with the cite and quote specifically where he has.

I’ve already provided it, you just don’t think its enough.

So do you still think the AWB of 1994 was effective in reducing gun violence? Significantly (as you use the term)?

Do you still think that a pool in the back yard is more dangerous for young children than guns in the home?

Do you still think the NRA gets the majority of its money from gun manufacturers?

Do you still think the NRA botcott of Smith & Wesson was at the behest of all the other gun manufacturers?

Do you still think you’ve never been corrected on anything in this debate?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri Ajashi

So do you still think the AWB of 1994 was effective in reducing gun violence? Significantly (as you use the term)?

Please quote anywhere that I said the AWM was effective in reducing gun violence.

What I have always believed is that:
a) there is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of the AWB on any outcomes
b) what evidence does exist is equivocal
c) what is needed is evidence that AW were reduced, and that such a reduction led to any changes

None of that has changed at all, and in a whole thread dedicated to responding to my request to you for facts, you could not provide one. Someone else had to come along and link to a study suggesting an absence of evidence for any effects. A further study conducted later suggested evidence of some effects – in other words, equivocal findings.

What I have come to appreciate more fully from this board is that it is very likely the AWB didn’t even achieve any reductions in assault weapons, rendering any further outcomes impossible. As gun advocates have pointed out, it was quite easy to subvert the AWB, thus no effects would likely be observed.

Do you still think that a pool in the back yard is more dangerous for young children than guns in the home?

I have never thought that a pool in the back yard is more dangerous than guns in the home.

And when you get that one worked out properly, remember, “it’s the denominator, stupid”. Exposure. Moving from your house because most accidents happen near there.

Do you still think the NRA gets the majority of its money from gun manufacturers?

I don’t believe I ever said that they get the majority of their money from gun manufacturers. I believe I have always said that they get significant funding from the gun manufacturers. I do believe that they get less than half their money from members. I agree that this does not necessarily mean they get all the rest from gun manufacturers.

Nobody has shown me that they do not.

Do you still think the NRA botcott of Smith & Wesson was at the behest of all the other gun manufacturers?

You’re the only one stupid enough to think that the boycott is evidence contrary to the assertion that the NRA represents gun manufacturers. Even other gun advocates don’t say anything as stupid as this.

Do you still think you’ve never been corrected on anything in this debate?

As is evident, not on any of these things. You’ve certainly not provided any evidence to make me come close to questioning my beliefs.