# Studying Firearm Related Violence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 4, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994 "2014-06-04T04:48:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/61 "2014-06-08T19:13:02Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So the data is so unreliable in your opinion, we can’t know what happened, but we do know that based on anonymous people funded by the Joyce Foundation that most instances of reported DGU from one study were probably illegal. Critical examination appears inconsistent here. You know, I’ve spent a lot of time responding to your various issues, concerns and objectives. I critiqued a response from Lott for you without any reply or response on your part. I explained some issues regarding the modeling of count data. I explained in detail matters related to grant funding. You have nothing to say, except to make the most trivially stupid comments in response (e.g., “community?”; “probably illegal?”) Your response here is obviously willful ignorance. There’s little point in giving you the time to respond. I will explain the very simple logic here, and I predict you will give no indication of getting it. When you don’t ask anything about the details of an incident of DGU, you cannot have any sense about what it is that people are calling defensive gun use. When you do get contextual information, you can evaluate the incident further. If you do not have expertise in criminal law, you can consult with a criminal court judge. Recognizing the potential for an individual judge to see things differently, you can even arrange for a panel of judges and can rely on their consensus. That’s what Hemenway did. So, getting the evaluation of judges reveals that half of the DGUs obtained in that survey describe probably illegal behavior. Trying to impugn the results by suggesting that the judges were anonymous or that it was funded by the Joyce Foundation are just a desperate efforts at knee-jerk negation without any basis in fact. The only outcome of publishing the names of the judges would be to have them get harassed by a bunch of gun nut douchebags. > [@](#): > > In what way would you say that the NCVS data is not objective? How would objective data be identified? Now I have to explain the definition of the word “objective” to you? > [@](#): > > Consider the hypothetical I posed, _“If an unarmed person starts trying to kick in my door, and through the window they see me display a firearm so they run off, no shots fired, no police report - do you consider that a DGU? If yes, how would that be captured by any study you’d accept? If no, why not?”_ If you could address these items, it would go a long way towards understanding your position. Gun nuts have shot people turning around in their driveway, knocking on the door looking for directions or trick or treating. They overestimate threats dramatically. I’m very sure they would suggest that those people were “trying to kick in my door”. I’m also certain that they interpret benign sounds as intruders. I’m certain that this results in many circumstances of hearing an intruder, getting their gun, and not finding any intruder subsequently. Thus, a successful defensive gun use. I’d be fine with any method that did not rely on the self-report of a group of people who is by their very nature more scared and prone to overestimate risks than normal people. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/62 "2014-06-08T19:38:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The study controls for neighborhoods doesn’t it? This isn’t a meant as a damning criticism, but I don’t think you understand the case control method. As explained on page 1085 of the [New England Journal of Medicine](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506) study in question, they tried to get controls who lived exactly one block away from the victim they were seeking a control for. If that person did not match in other ways, or would not participate, they went to the next house. ---
**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:** [June 8, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/63 "2014-06-08T20:22:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > You know, I’ve spent a lot of time responding to your various issues, concerns and objectives. I critiqued a response from Lott for you without any reply or response on your part. I explained some issues regarding the modeling of count data. I explained in detail matters related to grant funding. You have nothing to say, except to make the most trivially stupid comments in response (e.g., “community?”; “probably illegal?”) Perhaps you missed it - I did thank you for your explanation of grant funding. I also stated I’m not a statistician and much of the discussion regarding statistical analysis methods are beyond my expertise. The thread is long so I’m willing to assume that you missed those statements. Even in your response directed towards the work of Lott - it seems you are unable or unwilling to contain your hostility. You may be completely correct (I have no opinion because like I said, it’s beyond my expertise, though it seems people who are in favor of gun control think it’s so obvious that folks like Lott and Kleck are wrong, but folks that are against gun control think the opposite), but it’s hard to take the criticism seriously when it’s laced with childish taunts and insults. The reason I did mention \*community \*instead of _states_, and ‘probably illegal’ instead of ‘illegal’, is because those change the meaning of the point you are trying to make. I’m not sure if it’s on purpose, you did omit a section of a quoted paragraph that changed the meaning of that as well. If these are just oversights on your part and not an intentional effort to mislead, an intellectually honest response would be to acknowledge them rather than call them trivially stupid. > [@](#): > > When you don’t ask anything about the details of an incident of DGU, you cannot have any sense about what it is that people are calling defensive gun use. > > When you do get contextual information, you can evaluate the incident further. If you do not have expertise in criminal law, you can consult with a criminal court judge. Recognizing the potential for an individual judge to see things differently, you can even arrange for a panel of judges and can rely on their consensus. That’s what Hemenway did. > > So, getting the evaluation of judges reveals that half of the DGUs obtained in that survey describe probably illegal behavior. > > Trying to impugn the results by suggesting that the judges were anonymous or that it was funded by the Joyce Foundation are just a desperate efforts at knee-jerk negation without any basis in fact. The only outcome of publishing the names of the judges would be to have them get harassed by a bunch of gun nut douchebags. Would you accept the results of a study funded by the NRA? You seem hostile to people like Lott, would you accept a study by Lott that did exactly the same thing as Hemenway but found opposite results? It’s a legitimate criticism that Joyce funded certain research, Hemenway selected judges, from states with more restrictive gun control laws, and then based on their reading concludes that most reported DGU are probably illegal. And somehow you think it’s completely reasonable to extrapolate that out across the population. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > > > However, the implications apply to any self-reported defensive gun use. Unless there is some more objective measure, we can’t know what actually happened, and there’s evidence to illustrate that people claim DGU when they were the aggressor, when they erroneously perceived a threat, and when they just made shit up. > > > [@Bone](#): > > > > In what way would you say that the NCVS data is not objective? How would objective data be identified? > > Now I have to explain the definition of the word “objective” to you? Look at this in sequence. You are claiming that self reported DGU do not have a ‘more objective measure’ so we can’t know what actually happened. You scoff at any attempt to even estimate DGU, since you are certain the data are unreliable. The question of how objective data would be identified logically follows. If your complaint is that the data is not objective, unless you can say how the NCVS data is not objective, and how objective data would be identified, it appears there is no data you would accept. If that’s the case, fine, but at least be honest about it. > [@](#): > > Gun nuts have shot people turning around in their driveway, knocking on the door looking for directions or trick or treating. They overestimate threats dramatically. I’m very sure they would suggest that those people were “trying to kick in my door”. Even if this is true, it’s irrelevant to my hypothetical. Can you answer it directly? Are you avoiding answering it on purpose? > [@](#): > > I’d be fine with any method that did not rely on the self-report of a group of people who is by their very nature more scared and prone to overestimate risks than normal people. So, you are certain that a group of people overestimate threats dramatically, but you’d be fine with any method that did not rely on these same people. What would that look like to you? Could you craft such a study? It sounds like unobtainum. You’d only accept perfect analysis, nothing is perfect, so no data is acceptable. Except the ones that seem to portray gun ownership as negative, right? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/64 "2014-06-09T04:30:28Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > This isn’t a meant as a damning criticism, but I don’t think you understand the case control method. > > As explained on page 1085 of the [New England Journal of Medicine](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506) study in question, they tried to get controls who lived exactly one block away from the victim they were seeking a control for. If that person did not match in other ways, or would not participate, they went to the next house. So doesn’t that control for neighborhood (or as near to it as we can get)? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/65 "2014-06-10T00:03:55Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So doesn’t that control for neighborhood (or as near to it as we can get)? Yes. I interpreted you as questioning that. One more comment on your earlier post: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I am looking at page 1087 where they say that guns in the home were most strongly linked with homicide by family members or intimate acquaintances (7.8 odds ratio) and does not seem to increase chances of being killed by acquaintances unidentified intruders or strangers. This is a bit of a strange way of summarizing the finding that guns don’t provide benefit in scenarios where gun proponents say they help\*, while greatly hurting in other situations. "We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup . . . " * * * - Other than, of course, hunting, but the article, and the thread, is about violence against people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2014, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/66 "2014-06-10T02:31:17Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Yes. I interpreted you as questioning that. I don’t doubt that the study was conducted the way studies are supposed to be conducted. I have never taken issue with that. I have taken issue with how the results have been presented (I still don’t think we should prohibit research of any sort but the results were presented in a way that implied that if you went to a store and brought home a gun, then the chances of someone in your home getting murdered just tripled). > [@](#): > > One more comment on your earlier post: > > This is a bit of a strange way of summarizing the finding that guns don’t provide benefit in scenarios where gun proponents say they help\*, while greatly hurting in other situations. "We found no evidence of a protective benefit from gun ownership in any subgroup . . . " > > * * * > > - Other than, of course, hunting, but the article, and the thread, is about violence against people. Didn’t the "evidence of protective benefit involve justifiable homicides rather than dgu? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994.md?page=3)