# 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:** 288
**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:** [August 21, 2015, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5741 "2015-08-21T14:41:29Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Unless you claim that all the studies showing that guns have a negative net impact are dispassionately researched truth, and all the studies that claim guns have either no or a positive impact are lying propaganda, then I can’t take your certainty as proven. I do not believe that the gun issue is as cut and dried as smoking or global warming. Right. So what happens next is that we dig into your concerns about the literature, and we end up talking about what this odds ratio is or that confidence interval is or whether this association was lagged relative to the outcome. Which is all fine and good, but after each thing is explained and you guys reach the end of the “how to debunk gun studies” bullet points you read on gun blogs, rather than saying “Well, I guess I see how that might be a valid point,” you end up just waving your hands and claiming that all the gun research is biased anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5742 "2015-08-21T15:16:08Z")
Here’s a question that I’d be interested in knowing the answer to: if proposed laws requiring gun owners to have liability insurance came to pass, what risk would insurance companies assign to owning a gun, and therefore what would they charge? Before you answer let me point out that insurance companies are in the aggregate very good at estimating things like this; they’d go broke if they weren’t. And since they compete for business, they will likely charge close to the lowest rate that will still yield a profit- if they didn’t someone else would. The result, I am certain, is that they would NOT simply divide the number of gun deaths and injuries by the total number of guns owners, and charge a blanket rate. For example, they would never pay out for suicides, insurance companies never do. They would of course flatly refuse to insure anyone who cannot legally own a gun, so all such shootings wouldn’t be insured. They would presumably charge a base rate for gun owners who have never had any incidents, with perhaps a discount for anyone who has taken a certified safety course; a higher rate for people with one incident in their history; and then a steeply escalating rate for anyone who can’t seem to stay out of trouble. My guess is, the smart money would say that a middle-class gun owner with no criminal record would have a trivially small probability of committing a shooting that would require compensation. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5743 "2015-08-21T15:17:50Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Right. So what happens next is that we dig into your concerns about the literature, and we end up talking about what this odds ratio is or that confidence interval is or whether this association was lagged relative to the outcome. Which is all fine and good, but after each thing is explained and you guys reach the end of the “how to debunk gun studies” bullet points you read on gun blogs, rather than saying “Well, I guess I see how that might be a valid point,” you end up just waving your hands and claiming that all the gun research is biased anyway. Let me rephrase the question: what makes you so certain that the studies you cite are credible, and the ones showing a different outcome are not? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5744 "2015-08-21T15:21:14Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > My guess is, the smart money would say that a middle-class gun owner with no criminal record would have a trivially small probability of committing a shooting that would require compensation. That depends; are they liable for accidental discharges that result in property damage, injury or death? ---
**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:** [August 21, 2015, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5745 "2015-08-21T15:27:35Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Let me rephrase the question: what makes you so certain that the studies you cite are credible, and the ones showing a different outcome are not? Where have I said that? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5746 "2015-08-21T15:41:30Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Where have I said that? 😕 Hasn’t that been the message of your last several posts? What I’ve taken away is your saying “Look! Look, here’s the proof of the truth! SEE!” and then saying that anyone who doesn’t is in denial. ---
**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:** [August 21, 2015, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5747 "2015-08-21T16:09:39Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 😕 Hasn’t that been the message of your last several posts? What I’ve taken away is your saying “Look! Look, here’s the proof of the truth! SEE!” and then saying that anyone who doesn’t is in denial. Fuck. Read what I wrote. If you want to handwave, just do that. If you pretend that your rejection hinges on methodoligical or statistical issues, and your objections there are rebutted, switching gears to just handwave the results away then is just shitty. You seem to suggest that the empirical literature is a matter of taste, like prefering Star Trek to Star Wars. It is not. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5748 "2015-08-21T16:57:53Z")
😕😕 **Hentor** , I’m trying to honestly debate you, but I’m genuinely confused as to just what you’re claiming. ---
**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:** [August 21, 2015, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5749 "2015-08-21T17:13:34Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 😕😕 **Hentor** , I’m trying to honestly debate you, but I’m genuinely confused as to just what you’re claiming. Okay, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you can go back and reconsider post 5745. Can you clarify what you were trying to say there in a less potentially dickish manner? ---
**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:** [August 21, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5750 "2015-08-21T20:22:51Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Let me rephrase the question: what makes you so certain that the studies you cite are credible, and the ones showing a different outcome are not? What are these studies you’re referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative, and then there are other studies that don’t actually address the question (like defensive gun use studies). ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5751 "2015-08-24T04:36:18Z")
No one is a criminal until they are. [Two dudes stopped by police before they could shoot up the world pokemon championship](http://time.com/4007512/boston-pokemon-world-championship-violence/) (whatever that means) in Boston. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5752 "2015-08-24T08:24:50Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > What are these studies you’re referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative … Net negative for the average gun-owner but, like the children of Lake Wobegon, all righteous white-skinned gun-owners are above average. 😃 And, how did the study treat non-prosecutable homicides? **Damuri Ajashi** is on record(\*) as effectively claiming that all non-prosecuted homicides by civilians are “beneficial.” (\* - He may have rolled back this claim. I don’t know, I got tired of reading the whiny dolt.) ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5753 "2015-08-24T08:55:08Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > For example, they would never pay out for suicides, insurance companies never do. Small nitpick - my insurance company does pay out for suicide - after a two year wait period. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2015, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5754 "2015-08-24T16:32:09Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > And, how did the study treat non-prosecutable homicides? **Damuri Ajashi** is on record(\*) as effectively claiming that all non-prosecuted homicides by civilians are “beneficial.” > > (\* - He may have rolled back this claim. I don’t know, I got tired of reading the whiny dolt.) You are distorting what he said. He claimed “justifiable homicides” by gun-owning citizens as a benefit of private ownership of guns. Prosecution is kind of irrelevant: a “justifiable” homicide might in fact be prosecuted, and an “unjustifiable” (i.e., criminal) homicide might in fact not be prosecuted, due to issues with evidence or inability to find a suspect. Where it falls down is in the definition of “justifiable”. By **Damuri Ajashi** ’s standard, the killing of Trayvon Martin might have been justifiable. Insofar as Zimmerman was acquitted, the killing has legally been deemed not criminal, but whether one could call it genuinely justifiable remains a matter of debate (as to whether the situation was created by the killer when it could have been avoided). If I catch you in my house, does my uncertainty automatically make your life forfeit? “Castle doctrine” seems to make that assertion, but is it a fair one? Where, exactly do we draw the “justifiable” line? Do more people need to die upon that line for us to figure out where it is? One of the issues for the gun control people remains the fact that the gun itself is _not a neutral party_. Strict gundamentalists strongly deny this, but it seems pretty obvious to me that a gun at hand is certainly going to affect how a situation plays out. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, if the former had not had a gun in his pocket, how/if he would have confronted the latter would have been very different. I suspect most people do not consider that homicide to have been “justifiable” or even “beneficial”, and if you take the gun out of the picture, a homicide would almost certainly not have happened (Zimmerman probably would not have approached Martin, or would have done so in a much less threatening manner). So my claim is that guns tend to make people stupid, or at the very least, less careful. Perhaps even _less polite_. The counter-claim is that “_No They Don’t_”. I am not quite sure which side the evidence supports, or even which side ought to have the burden of proof. However, I do not believe that “_No They Don’t_” is a sufficient refutation to my claim. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5755 "2015-08-28T18:04:05Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > > [@Lumpy](#): > > > > Let me rephrase the question: what makes you so certain that the studies you cite are credible, and the ones showing a different outcome are not? > > What are these studies you’re referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative, and then there are other studies that don’t actually address the question (like defensive gun use studies). Crickets? Did I call your bluff or something? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5756 "2015-08-28T18:19:02Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Crickets? Did I call your bluff or something? :rolleyes: Fer Chrissake, I didn’t expect to have to do a research project just to post something. There have been enough cites in enough gun threads here that I thought that was uncontroversial. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2015, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5757 "2015-08-28T18:25:29Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > :rolleyes: Fer Chrissake, I didn’t expect to have to do a research project just to post something. There have been enough cites in enough gun threads here that I thought that was uncontroversial. Quite the opposite, really; study after study shows that homes with guns are less safe than homes without. That’s the uncontroversial position. I thought maybe you knew something I didn’t. ---
**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:** [August 28, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5758 "2015-08-28T20:30:34Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Quite the opposite, really; study after study shows that homes with guns are less safe than homes without. That’s the uncontroversial position. I thought maybe you knew something I didn’t. You made [6 posts in a thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725137) discussing the [CDC report assessing the existing research on gun violence](http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf). From that report: > [@](#): > > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive > gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by > criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to > more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about > 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the > other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only > 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization > Survey (Cook et al., 1997). > > … > > A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous > or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding > crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual > defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the > crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have > found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims > compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, > 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, > 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary > across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the > crime, so further research is needed, both to explore these contingencies > and to confirm or discount earlier findings. > > Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury > for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a > gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry— > may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun > ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by > those who invade the homes of gun owners this could cancel or outweigh > the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, > 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to > this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important > question that it merits additional, careful exploration. This is not to say one study is right or another is wrong - but that there clearly are conflicting studies and you participated in at least one thread discussing those. Did you forget participating in a thread that discussed some studies that \*\*Lumpy \*\*was referring to? ---
**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:** [August 29, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5759 "2015-08-29T15:09:42Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is not to say one study is right or another is wrong - but that there clearly are conflicting studies and you participated in at least one thread discussing those. Did you forget participating in a thread that discussed some studies that \*\*Lumpy \*\*was referring to? Allow me to quote myself here: > [@steronz](#): > > What are these studies you’re referring to that show a different outcome? My understanding is that there are metastudies that show that having a gun in the house is a net negative, **and then there are other studies that don’t actually address the question (like defensive gun use studies).** You’ve linked to a thread about a defensive gun use study and pointed out 6 posts where I say things like: > [@Studying Firearm Related Violence](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/studying-firearm-related-violence/689994/50): > > I’m saying that DGUs don’t really mean anything. I think I did a fairly good job of explaining in that thread _why_ I feel that studies that look at defensive gun use don’t actually address the question, and when I challenged Lumpy I explicitly used DGU studies as an example of the sort of thing I don’t find convincing. So no, I didn’t forget participating in that thread. And I’m still waiting for Lumpy to tell me about these contradicting studies that show a net positive benefit to gun ownership. ---
**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:** [August 29, 2015, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729/5760 "2015-08-29T16:41:07Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > You’ve linked to a thread about a defensive gun use study and pointed out 6 posts where I say things like: Actually no. The study is called “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”. It’s 113 pages and is essentially a summary of much of the research that has been done across several areas relating to firearm violence. While it discusses DGU, it is not a defensive gun use study. > [@](#): > > I think I did a fairly good job of explaining in that thread _why_ I feel that studies that look at defensive gun use don’t actually address the question, and when I challenged Lumpy I explicitly used DGU studies as an example of the sort of thing I don’t find convincing. So no, I didn’t forget participating in that thread. And I’m still waiting for Lumpy to tell me about these contradicting studies that show a net positive benefit to gun ownership. I agree you did a fairly good job of explaining your position in that thread. I find your position unpersuasive and weakly supported, but I understood your points. But look back at the sequence that led to your criticism. Hentor is made claims that abuot the available research pointing to various conclusions (5738) and further lamented that these great studies get handwaved away (5740). Lumpy then countered by asking what makes the studies that favor a certain position credible, and the contrary position not credible (5742). You then ask what studies are those (5749). But on top of your request, you are excluding any study of DGU. First, your exclusion of DGU studies is moving the goal posts. That is not the framework under which Lumpy made his statement. Second, what exactly do you think the benefit of gun possession is, if not to be used defensively? A core right of the 2nd amendment is self defense - I would argue that liberty and self defense are the primary benefit, but you are asking for evidence of positive outcomes but excluding any evidence of positive outcomes? You’ve asked for evidence of something but excluded any mention of said evidence. Good luck with that! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=287) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-gun-news-of-the-day-part-1/648729.md?page=289)