# Stupid Gun news of the day (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729 "2013-01-29T19:01:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 207
**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:** [May 29, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4121 "2014-05-29T18:30:49Z")
Highlights from the most recent GunFAIL ([Welcome to Walmart! Shoot 1 customer this week & get another of equal/lesser value FREE! GunFAIL LXX](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/26/1298679/-Welcome-to-WalMart-Shoot-1-customer-this-week-get-another-of-equal-lesser-value-FREE-GunFAIL-LXX)) > [@](#): > > […] bearing in mind that these figures represent a fortnight’s worth of GunFAILs, we note that 26 people accidentally shot themselves, six accidentally fired their weapons while cleaning them, five dropped them while out in public (though they didn’t always discharge), four accidentally blasted through into their neighbors’ homes (what we call “home invasion shootings”), three shot themselves or others while at the practice range, two shot themselves or others while trying to shoot dogs they claimed were attacking them (both missed the dogs, incidentally), […] > > Four law enforcement officers were involved in various GunFAILs, and four other Responsible Gun Owners had GunFAILs while out and about among the consuming public—two of which were at Walmarts—and both involving injury. […] > > […] and the repeat GunFAILer in Canton, MI, who reportedly had been previously cited for recklessness after accidentally shooting himself, and who’s now fired a round into his neighbor’s apartment while cleaning his still-loaded gun. Thanks for keeping the neighborhood safe with your Responsible Gun Ownership, Mr. Ticking Time Bomb Freedom! > > Special mention is reserved for the school photographer who dropped and lost his concealed handgun in the hallway of the Queens, NY, elementary school where he was working. This would never happen with a teacher carrying a concealed weapon, though, because reasons. Also, the Honea Path, SC gang who “accidentally” shot and killed one of their friends after he asked them to help “test” his “bulletproof vest.” ---
**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:** [May 29, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4122 "2014-05-29T19:21:24Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > No shit, Sherlock. That was the point I was replying to. Just correcting your post. Because sometimes it really seems like you believe your own bullshit. > [@steronz](#): > > I’m overwhelmed by how thoroughly you’re missing the point. Perhaps if you’d be a little bit clearer with your point. > [@](#): > > Something so _prevalent_ should be easy to show a marked safety benefit then, right? 100,000 dgu is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of crimes. There are 1.5 million crimes committed with guns alone. The total number of crimes is several multiples of that. What sort of marked safety benefit would you expect? > [@](#): > > I… I can’t follow your logic here. You: “Guns are an effective safety device, this big DGU number is my evidence.” Me: “Studies have shown that guns aren’t effective, DGUs are meaningless, here’s why.” You: “We don’t have to prove that guns are effective.” What studies have you cited that show that guns aren’t effective? > [@](#): > > YOU’RE the one claiming that DGUs mean something. I’m not burdening you with the “proof,” you’re providing it willingly! And now I’m rebutting it. With what? how are you rebutting dgus as meaningless? If there are 100,000 dgus then that means there are 100,000 cases where a gun was used defensively. Why isn’t that meaningfuil in and of itself? > [@](#): > > So I’m selling my tiger-attack-prevention rocks and selling heart attack prevention rocks! $39.99, act now and get one free. > > Of course, studies show that my rocks don’t work. In fact, since they’re largely bought by high-risk fatties, people with my rocks seem to be at a higher risk of having a heart attack. BUT! I say. But within these rocks, those fatties would be having even MORE heart attacks. As proof for this spurious claim, I can present to you: > > A) Carefully controlled studies that show that, controlling for demographics and risk factors, the rocks are in fact effective at preventing heart attacks, or > > B) Hundreds of thousands of self-reported claims of people saying that they had chest pains, rubbed the rocks on their noses, and the chest pains went away. Heart attack prevented! Viva la rocks! > > Now, as a slimy rock-monger, I can’t produce A. So I throw B at you. Are you convinced!? Gun nuts are not engaging in magical thinking, in the case of guns, there are news reports of people with guns using them in self defense. There are justifiable homicide statistics telling us for a FACT that guns can be used in self defense. Do your magic rocks have that? All we are doing is trying to figure out how much benefit guns provide, not IF they provide a benefit. > [@](#): > > Does the analogy make sense to you? DGUs DO NOT MATTER. Does my explanation of why your anaologies suck make sense to you? All your analogies assume that guns are magical fetishes. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4123 "2014-05-29T19:44:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > All we are doing is trying to figure out how much benefit guns provide, not IF they provide a benefit. Whoa, there. The question is, do they provide a \*net \*benefit? ---
**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:** [May 29, 2014, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4124 "2014-05-29T21:30:07Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Whoa, there. The question is, do they provide a \*net \*benefit? Thats right but your analogies posit that magical thinking is required to determine that there is ANY benefit. You are comparing guns to magical rocks that prevent tiger attacks and heart attacks. The cost of guns in society is fairly easy to nail down (though not without controversy). The benefit of guns is a bit harder to nail down but there are benefits. You anaologize guns to snake oil in providing security. 100,000 dgu is not a figment of someone’s imagination, it is a number produced by the Department fo Justice. it is on the whole a very low estimate. It alone does not tell us if there is a net benefit but it casts at least some doubt on the notion that guns are a clear negative to society. We will never know exactly how many lives are saved, how many injuries are prevented, how much property is conserved in socieety because of the legal ownership of guns but we do know that the number is not zero as it would be for magical heart attack preventing rocks. ---
**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:** [May 29, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4125 "2014-05-29T21:44:36Z")
I love how Dumuri always appeals to authority by describing it as if that is the DOJs official position. “It’s the government!” He has never been able to say why 100K is a better or worse estimate than 250K, 2.5 million or my estimate of 6. He doesn’t even realize that the NCVS based estimate isn’t even 100K. The guy has no capacity for thinking this stuff through on his own. It’s all just whatever some authority tells him - as long as it accords with his preconceived belief. ---
**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:** [May 30, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4126 "2014-05-30T03:04:16Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I love how Dumuri always appeals to authority by describing it as if that is the DOJs official position. “It’s the government!” Its not an official position any more than the results of the US census is the government’s official position. It is a survey conducted by the US government and a cite I have shared with you. Your responses have been pretty weak and now I am dealing with someone who thinks that guns are like magical heart attack prevention rocks. > [@](#): > > He has never been able to say why 100K is a better or worse estimate than 250K, 2.5 million or my estimate of 6. So, you’re saying that because I am not a statistician, I cannot cite a government survey as a credible source of information? So remind me again why we can’t have these gun debates in Great Debates again?:rolleyes: ---
**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:** [May 30, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4127 "2014-05-30T03:21:32Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its not an official position any more than the results of the US census is the government’s official position. It is a survey conducted by the US government and a cite I have shared with you. Just to be clear, the methodology of the census and of the NCVS lead to vastly different levels of confidence in the estimates, right? > [@](#): > > So, you’re saying that because I am not a statistician, I cannot cite a government survey as a credible source of information? So remind me again why we can’t have these gun debates in Great Debates again?:rolleyes: No dummy. You said that 100K was the best estimate. I have simply, repeatedly asked you why it is the best. If you want to retract your characterization of it, that is fine by me. One doesn’t have to be a statistician to explain one’s own statements, right? ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4128 "2014-05-30T14:25:28Z")
[This explains a lot.](http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/28/well-this-explains-gun-nuts-distrusting-people-are-dumber/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com) Key quote: _Next time a conservative friend says, “Obumer is a socialist whose (sic) gonna take my guns that I use to protect my family whenever them welfare queens who use my tax money to buy Obamaphones break in,” remember that he can’t help it. He was born scared and stupid._ ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4129 "2014-05-30T14:52:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Thats right but your analogies posit that magical thinking is required to determine that there is ANY benefit. You are comparing guns to magical rocks that prevent tiger attacks and heart attacks. > > You anaologize guns to snake oil in providing security. See above about completely missing the point. Obviously a gun can be used to shoot an intruder, whereas a rock, to the best of our knowledge, can’t prevent a heart attack. The point was to choose an example of which you’re naturally skeptical. So let’s forget about snake oil, let’s imagine a drug X that can prevent heart attacks, but also has a nasty side effect of occasionally killing the patient. We can easily track how many people drug X killed as a side effect, so on the surface, things seem bad. If you were considering taking this drug, would you accept: A) A controlled study showing that people who take the drug die less often than people who don’t, or B) A collection of “heart attack prevention” (HAP) reports from people who claim that they had chest pains that went away while on the drug. It doesn’t matter if it’s guns, snake oil, or heart medicine, the only thing we care about is if there’s a provable net safety benefit. In none of these cases do we need to count specific instances of the product working, we only need to gather a population of item users and item non-users, control for as many factors as we can, and see who dies more often. DGUs, DRUs, or HAPs. All meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4130 "2014-05-30T16:05:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The cost of guns in society is fairly easy to nail down (though not without controversy). The benefit of guns is a bit harder to nail down but there are benefits. You raise a good point, perhaps a large, careful, prospective study should be conducted to determine what effect epidemiologically the presence of guns in a household has on the safety of the residents. I’m sure that since you know that guns prevent more deaths than they cause, that you and your ilk would [support such a careful study](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/funds-studies-gun-violence-article-1.1809263). ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4131 "2014-05-30T21:57:14Z")
[Open Carry Texas harasses, threatens former Marine for speaking against them](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/30/1303128/-Open-Carry-Texas-harasses-threatens-former-Marine-for-speaking-against-them?detail=facebook) ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4132 "2014-05-31T00:57:51Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You raise a good point, perhaps a large, careful, prospective study should be conducted to determine what effect epidemiologically the presence of guns in a household has on the safety of the residents. I’m sure that since you know that guns prevent more deaths than they cause, that you and your ilk would [support such a careful study](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/funds-studies-gun-violence-article-1.1809263). Why not? [The Justice Department](http://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/awards-list.aspx?tags=Gun%20Violence) has continued to fund [studies](https://researchfunding.duke.edu/detail.asp?OppID=13485)such as the one you are discussing. $4 million or so in the last two years. ---
**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:** [May 31, 2014, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4133 "2014-05-31T01:41:41Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Why not? [The Justice Department](http://www.nij.gov/funding/awards/Pages/awards-list.aspx?tags=Gun%20Violence) has continued to fund [studies](https://researchfunding.duke.edu/detail.asp?OppID=13485)such as the one you are discussing. $4 million or so in the last two years. “Continued” is a tricksy word to put in there, since the last two years reflects a significant change in funding of gun violence research. You may recall Newtown, and Obama’s subsequent executive order. Would you please run the same search for FY2011 or FY2012? Thanks. ---
**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 2, 2014, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4134 "2014-06-02T02:13:31Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Just to be clear, the methodology of the census and of the NCVS lead to vastly different levels of confidence in the estimates, right? AFAICT, they are both surveys nd neither constitutes a government “position” on anything. If you want to make a case against the NCVS, then please do so. I use the NCVS because it is the LOWEST raw estimate we get from any source. > [@](#): > > No dummy. You said that 100K was the best estimate. I have simply, repeatedly asked you why it is the best. If you want to retract your characterization of it, that is fine by me. Well, I don’t think that 100,000 is the BEST estimate, I think the best estimates are about 250,000-400,000 YMMV. I think 100,000 is the lowest estimate. I was trying to show how unreasonable you were being in refusing to accept even the lowest estimates we have. > [@](#): > > One doesn’t have to be a statistician to explain one’s own statements, right? No of course not but when your argument centers around asking me to explain the statistical science surrounding how the Department of Justice conducts its surveys in an effort to undercut my reliance on the DoJ, then I suspect you are engaging in argument from authority. You’re basically saying that we cannot believe the department of justice estimates because I don’t understand statistical science. If you want to attack the NCVS, then please do so and people can judge for themselves whether or not you are full of shit. > [@steronz](#): > > See above about completely missing the point. Obviously a gun can be used to shoot an intruder, whereas a rock, to the best of our knowledge, can’t prevent a heart attack. The point was to choose an example of which you’re naturally skeptical. So let’s forget about snake oil, let’s imagine a drug X that can prevent heart attacks, but also has a nasty side effect of occasionally killing the patient. > > We can easily track how many people drug X killed as a side effect, so on the surface, things seem bad. If you were considering taking this drug, would you accept: > > A) A controlled study showing that people who take the drug die less often than people who don’t, or > > B) A collection of “heart attack prevention” (HAP) reports from people who claim that they had chest pains that went away while on the drug. The NCVS is not some random collection of anecdotes. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t matter if it’s guns, snake oil, or heart medicine, the only thing we care about is if there’s a provable net safety benefit. I think you have that backwards. We don’t do anything unless you can prove a net safety detriment, the burden is not on gun owners to prove that they should keep the right. The burden is on you to prove that they shouldn’t. > [@](#): > > DGUs, DRUs, or HAPs. All meaningless. Sure, if you don’t care about facts. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You raise a good point, perhaps a large, careful, prospective study should be conducted to determine what effect epidemiologically the presence of guns in a household has on the safety of the residents. I’m sure that since you know that guns prevent more deaths than they cause, that you and your ilk would [support such a careful study](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/funds-studies-gun-violence-article-1.1809263). I have no problem with the CDC funding gun research as long as it is not biased. I also don’t think that the federal government is not the sole source of funding for research in the universe. The amount of the CDC “defunding” was $2.6 million, it was largely a symbolic protest against the CDC’s perceived bias. ---
**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 2, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4135 "2014-06-02T02:15:18Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > “Continued” is a tricksy word to put in there, since the last two years reflects a significant change in funding of gun violence research. You may recall Newtown, and Obama’s subsequent executive order. > > Would you please run the same search for FY2011 or FY2012? Thanks. I suspect that the defunding of the cdc had a chilling effect across the entire bureaucracy. People didn’t feel free to deliver anything but “just the facts ma’am” sort of research. Lets see what these studies look like when they are done. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4136 "2014-06-02T05:26:28Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think you have that backwards. We don’t do anything unless you can prove a net safety detriment, the burden is not on gun owners to prove that they should keep the right. The burden is on you to prove that they shouldn’t. Again, I know it’s a long thread and you can’t be assed to be remember everything, but I’m not now, nor have I ever, been talking about rights here, 2nd amendment or otherwise. I’m talking about whether the average Joe should own a gun for personal protection. If your argument is “I own a gun because it makes me safer,” then the burden of proof is absolutely on you to prove it. If your argument is “I don’t give a flying fuck whether this makes me safer because it’s my right,” then why are you bringing up DGUs? This seems to be the repeating pattern with gun-rights activists. When [studies](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426) show that owning a gun makes you less safe, they attack the science, try to poke holes in it, and bring up irrelevant factors like DGU numbers. When that doesn’t work, they abandon the effort entirely and say “I don’t have to prove anything to you because it’s my right.” > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Sure, if you don’t care about facts. Dear god, just stop. ---
**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 2, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4137 "2014-06-02T15:21:23Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Again, I know it’s a long thread and you can’t be assed to be remember everything, but I’m not now, nor have I ever, been talking about rights here, 2nd amendment or otherwise. I’m talking about whether the average Joe should own a gun for personal protection. If your argument is “I own a gun because it makes me safer,” then the burden of proof is absolutely on you to prove it. If your argument is “I don’t give a flying fuck whether this makes me safer because it’s my right,” then why are you bringing up DGUs? My argument is not I own a gun because its safer. My argument is a counter to the arguments presented by gun grabbers that guns make you less safe. Particularly those gun grabbers who focus entirely on the cost side of the analysis without any consideration of the benefit side. > [@](#): > > This seems to be the repeating pattern with gun-rights activists. When [studies](http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426) show that owning a gun makes you less safe, they attack the science, What do you think that study says? Did you see the aprt about limitations? That part about firearm accessibility coming from surveys? taht same methodology that you seem to consider anecdote? How about the part that says that “Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.” I don’t know if this meeans they weren’t controlling for any other factors but it sort of sounds like it, doesn’t it? Ultimately they end up concluding an “association” between guns and deaths. Did you really need a study for that? > [@](#): > > try to poke holes in it, and bring up irrelevant factors like DGU numbers. When that doesn’t work, they abandon the effort entirely and say “I don’t have to prove anything to you because it’s my right.” All you have is a loose correlation between guns and deaths and you think you have established causation? You think that is poking holes in the science?!?!?! Do the studies you cite claim to have proven causation between gun ownership and death? No? Then how the fuck is your cited study any more relevant than DGU? You keep saying DGU numbers are irrelevant and I don’t think anyone believes that but you. How is the incidence of guns being used beneficially irrelevant in a cost benefit analysis? I never thought I had to prove anything. The law is on my side so the burden is on you to prove that things should be different. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4138 "2014-06-02T18:45:41Z")
[MN man pulls shotgun on neighbor teaching daughter to ride bike: ‘I should have shot him’](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/02/mn-man-pulls-shotgun-on-neighbor-teaching-daughter-ride-bike-i-should-have-shot-him/) ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4139 "2014-06-02T19:19:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You keep saying DGU numbers are irrelevant and I don’t think anyone believes that but you. How is the incidence of guns being used beneficially irrelevant in a cost benefit analysis? **Because it tells us nothing about the role of the gun in the outcome of any specific incident.** ---
**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 2, 2014, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/4140 "2014-06-02T19:24:37Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > This seems to be the repeating pattern with gun-rights activists. When studies show that owning a gun makes you less safe, **they attack the science** […] (bolding mine) I love this, because **Dumuri Ajashi** goes on immediately to prove both that you’re right and that he cannot understand the science anyway! Fucking brilliant irony! > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What do you think that study says? Which part didn’t you understand? Oh yeah, nevermind… > [@](#): > > Did you see the aprt about limitations? That part about firearm accessibility coming from surveys? taht same methodology that you seem to consider anecdote? What is the limitation noted by the researchers regarding survey data? > [@](#): > > How about the part that says that “Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death.” I don’t know if this meeans they weren’t controlling for any other factors but it sort of sounds like it, doesn’t it? It doesn’t sound anything like that at all. The part you quoted has nothing to do with controlling for other factors. In fact, this was a meta-analysis (a study which takes existing results from other studies and analyses the effects across them simultaneously) so it doesn’t really make sense to ask what these researchers were controlling or not controlling for. Now, it does make sense to ask about the criteria used to include or exclude studies from the meta-analysis, and if you bothered to read the paragraph just two above the one you fixated upon, you would see this: > [@The study](#): > > Despite their limitations, individual-level data, such as those we included in this study, are ideal because confounding and explanatory reasons for the relationship among firearms and suicide and homicide can be better explored. That means that they only included studies that accounted for potential confounders, dummy. (A confounder is the thing you are desperate to imagine exists regarding the relationship between gun ownership and dying, FYI.) Largely these were case-control studies that were included in this meta-analysis, meaning that they did control for other potentially explanatory factors. You really need to read the whole article, not just flip to the limitations section and then hope that the implications of the study are completely undone in exactly the manner that you stupidly think they will be. > [@](#): > > Ultimately they end up concluding an “association” between guns and deaths. Did you really need a study for that? So, you’re endorsing the results of the study? WOW! Everyone mark that down. Of course, this idiot doesn’t get that the study indicates that looking across published studies, the association between gun ownership and death by homicide and suicide is confirmed: If you have a gun in the home, you are twice as likely to be killed and three and a quarter times more likely to commit suicide. > [@](#): > > All you have is a loose correlation between guns and deaths and you think you have established causation? Loose correlation? Why is it “loose”? The particular study in question is a study of studies (a meta-analysis). It’s actually a more compelling result, since spurious correlations from individual studies would be more likely to be refuted. > [@](#): > > You think that is poking holes in the science?!?!?! Do the studies you cite claim to have proven causation between gun ownership and death? No? Then how the fuck is your cited study any more relevant than DGU? No study proves the causation of anything. This is just a dodge by the scientifically illiterate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=206) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=208)