Even NRA sees some open-carry tactics as ‘weird’ and ‘scary’
Gun Activists Cut Up NRA Member Cards Over Criticism Of AR-15s In Restaurants
[noparse]TL:DR[/noparse] version: “Dude, you’re embarrassing us…” “PISS OFF!”
I have been reflecting more on the sheer stupidity of Dumuri’s response to the last linked-to study. I mean, it takes not only a profound lack of intelligence, but also great and terribly misplaced overconfidence to simply flip to the limitations section of an empirical study, find some text that you admittedly don’t understand, and then presume that it must pertain to your own pet issue with research in general!
It’s also even more clear now that gun nuts like Dumuri a) assume that researchers do not understand the issue of controlling for potential confounding or explanatory variables, b) assume that editors and reviewers also do not understand about these basic and fundamental issues, c) assume that gun research gets published in top tier journals despite this fundamental ignorance, and d) assume that they know better about how to conduct research.
This is how they are able to conclude, as Lumpy did that the authors of a particular paper did not control for any other factors (when in fact the authors present a very easily understood table listing the 19 factors that they controlled for). This is how Dumuri can conclude that the authors of a meta-analysis published a “loose” correlation and didn’t control for other factors, despite the fact that the authors of the study described in detail their selection process for inclusion of studies in their meta-analysis, and specifically commented repeatedly on the issue of case-control data and individual level accounting for confounders throughout their paper.
Dumuri further seems to think that the listing of study limitations (a basic and ubiquitous section of research papers that is essentially required for any study to be published) means that the implications of the study are automatically undone. This complete imbecile does not seem to recognize that the reviewers and editors and any reader with a scintilla of knowledge will understand how to weight the limitations of the study relative to the overall merits of the work in considering the ultimate implications. Peer review generally results in the rejection of papers for which the limitations would mean that the study results are invalidated.
All of this also shows that for these morons, empirical evidence will never be sufficient to change their minds. They will reject any science on the premise that they know more about the effects of third variables than the researchers. They will also conclude that a particular study did not prove causation, and thus they can reject it out of hand.
Ultimately, gun nuts are so because they are scared people, and you really cannot reason someone out of an anxiety problem.
:rolleyes: This old shibboleth again? That’s on a par with accusing gun owners of seeking a penis substitute. Are you joining ElvisL1ves in asserting that all pro-gun people are by definition mentally ill? By identical logic all gun control advocates could be accused of having a paranoid neurotic phobia about guns.
- I don’t think “shibboleth” means what you think it means. 2) It is indisputable that gun owners are more focused on protecting themselves than non gun owners. 3) Gun nuts seem to markedly overestimate risks; they reliably describe fantasizing about needing to quick draw a bad guy. 4) People who do not feel especially vulnerable do not fret about personal protection or overestimate risks like that.
Gun nuts are scared people.
Not “all” pro-gun people, Lumpy. The ones who think of avoidable deaths as a statistic, and use terms like minimal, small, rare, even acceptable to describe it, yes, that’s psychotic. The ones who indulge visions of being the Good Guy With A Gun who actually stops the Bad Guy in some fast-food-joint shootout and therefore feels required to carry, yes, that’s delusional. The ones who think of forming militias of fellow freedom lovers to resist government tyranny when they come to take away their guns, yes, that’s also delusional. The ones who take pleasure over the very feel of that cold steel in their fingers, yes, that’s fetishism. And certainly some have a complex of more than one of those mental illnesses.
There are also hunters and marksmen, many of whom have none of those conditions, and have no need to carry in public or be elevated threats, but they’re not who we’ve been discussing, are we?
Then there’s gun “nuts” like me that enjoy the intrinsic value of a well designed, well crafted firearm, love the challenge of putting a bullet where you intend to on an inanimate target, love the smell of burned gunpowder and fantasize about quick drawing on a row of empty dog food cans.
I’m mostly scared I’ll never again be able to reliably find .22 rimfire ammo to buy.
The damn Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, in a study commissioned by the CDC, psychotic I tell you:
Bone, re: your first quoted line above - please quote the remainder of that paragraph of the report.
It’s linked, but sure:
(my bold)
Footnotes:
Here is more friendly version of the report. This section is in the Introduction on page 11. I couldn’t find a source that had the entire searchable report on one page that I could copy from.
The point is, the descriptors of “rare” and “small” while they could be construed to be a value judgment, they are not necessarily indicators of mental illness (or psychotic-ness).
(my bold)
Is this supposed to refute my post regarding **Elvis’s **characterization of mental illness? His claim is that anyone who uses the word “rare” or “small” to describe avoidable deaths (whatever that means) are psychotic and suffer from mental illness. Turns out, that’s an accurate description that is used widely.
Is your point is to say that injuries and deaths from firearms constitute a pressing public health problem? If that’s the case…ok. That doesn’t seem very contentious.
Was Elvis talking about multiple victim incidents relative to the magnitude of all gun violence? You’re quoting the report on a different point, dummy.
Well, Dumuri and others here have repeatedly contended that gun violence is not a public health problem. They’ve repeatedly complained that the CDC has no business examining the subject. You disagree?
Your tone here does you no favors. If you wish to continue the discussion in this fashion, feel free, but you’ll do so alone. I know this is The Pit, but we all choose how we engage.
**Elvis **was talking about avoidable deaths. The report was talking about multiple victim incidents. Do you honestly believe that he would say that it’s kosher to describe one group as rare and small, but the other not so? I think it would be helpful if you distance yourself from people like Elvis, but if you want to throw your lot in with him go right ahead.
Yes. But with this entire characterization. Gun violence is clearly a public health problem. So are a lot of other things as well. The point of contention is usually in where one ranks against the other. I have no problem in saying that gun violence is a problem. I prefer to describe the problem as one of violent crime, but there is no virtue in denying gun violence to be a public health problem.
The issue of whether the CDC has a place in examining the subject is political in nature. Public health problems fall within their purview so they would seem to be one of a few appropriate agencies to examine the issue. Whether they are able to do that effectively is debatable. My hope is that they would be able to do so. In the past I don’t think that was always the case.
I admit the extent of the linked article (120+ pages) contains areas beyond my expertise. Overall I think the study (was it a study?) aggregated previously acquired data rather than sought out new data. As such any results should be subject to weaknesses present in the underlying source data.
Fair enough. I felt you were being intentionally deceitful and misrepresenting the usage of the terms you were cherry picking from the report. If that was unintentional, I apologize. I’ve had the experience of gun nuts being almost nothing but exceedingly deceitful and stupid when it comes to research in this thread and related ones.
And here, I begin to wonder again about your motives and behavior. The NAS report you cited is using terms like “small” to describe the relative relationship of victims of mass firearm homicides to the overall number of firearms victims in the US. Elvis is complaining about people here minimizing the number of firearms victims.
You do yourself no favors in personalizing this rather than arguing a position on its merits.
Great. Thank you for being rational on this point.
Great. Thank you for being rational on this subject.
No, it’s a report of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s a review of the data on a particular topic. I think there’s a bit more value in primary data analyses and meta-analyses, but NAS reports are better than people pulling shit out of their ass.
I have always been very up front about my position. I don’t think it’s cherry picking if I’m linking the source, and willing to include whole paragraphs/sections upon request. The rest of that paragraph wasn’t relevant to the point I was making and didn’t change the meaning of the quoted section.
In any gun related thread, I’ll answer any question asked in good faith. I consider myself an advocate. I talk with my friends, coworkers, family. I vote. I donate. I take people shooting. As a pseudo-ambassador for the cause, it is more productive to be fair and forthright. I encourage all gun rights advocates to do the same. While I may not convince you specifically, other readers may be persuaded. I am not a statistician though, and there are vast areas I am ignorant, as with all of us. I’m open to correction if I have something factually incorrect.
Implicit in the terms “rare” and “small” used in this context is a comparison to something else - do you agree? If Elvis was excepting comparisons of victims of mass firearm homicides to the overall number of firearm victims from his conclusion that those who use such terms are psychotic and accepts that as a fair characterization then I would withdraw that statement. If he includes that comparison in his conclusion of the existence of mental illness and psychotic-ness then my point stands. I await clarification.
If you are correct and he wasn’t referring to the type of comparison I was making, that does lead to the question of where the use of those comparison terms he was talking about are. He uses the term “avoidable deaths” which I can’t determine the definition as applied. If the comparison is to “unintentional deaths” as defined by the CDC, then the comparison is something like 10K to 800K.
You’re right - but in the case of Elvis I am taking the Craig Fergeson/Britney Spears approach. It’s not an argument for or against, just a recognition of the audience.
I’m actually not convinced the CDC can be effective in this research. I would prefer they do studies and refrain from any advocacy. I’m not sure if that’s possible. I definitely don’t think gun violence and other violent crime can be treated with the same type of analysis as diseases. I suspect that criminologists may be better suited to this type of research but that’s just me. I found the article by Don Kates in Reason compelling. I’m sure some of it is debatable but overall it seems the CDC had sufficiently politicized the issue to render its value in research on this topic questionable and that’s a shame.
I read the report when it came out and remember thinking there should be a thread in GD on it. I think I’ll make one.
Bone, with all of this parsing and handwaving you’re doing, do you really not realize how amply you’re proving the point about understanding the value of human life?
How about this- based on comparing several other countries with the US, I would say that the following is plausible:[ul][]When a country is mostly peaceful anyway, banning guns increases peace and safety- it makes it harder for the rare psychopath to obtain weapons, and the incidence of violence was low enough already that guns were seldom used for self-defense.[]In a violent country, banning guns decreases peace and safety. Those committed to violence will make the effort to obtain illegal guns, those who prey on the peaceful will have little to fear in the way of defense, and it will be little comfort to the non-violent that guns are banned if instead they’re threatened or attacked with knives, clubs, or simply outnumbered by a gang.At some hypothetical level of violence therefore, guns will have a zero net impact either way- the deterrence value of guns would be exactly balanced by the harm done by those who misuse them.[/ul]The question would then be where on that hypothetical spectrum the US falls. It’s complicated by the fact that violence levels vary widely by region.
And we would, I hope, share a common desire to see our society become less violent, rather than throw up our hands and accept violence as a permanent condition. If those weirdo foreigners with their odd food and crazy traditions can manage it, why not the purported greatest nation on Earth? Doesn’t God love us best of all?
[quote=“Lumpy, post:4157, topic:648729”]
How about this- based on comparing several other countries with the US, I would say that the following is plausible:[ul][li]When a country is mostly peaceful anyway, banning guns increases peace and safety- it makes it harder for the rare psychopath to obtain weapons, and the incidence of violence was low enough already that guns were seldom used for self-defense.[]In a violent country, banning guns decreases peace and safety. Those committed to violence will make the effort to obtain illegal guns, those who prey on the peaceful will have little to fear in the way of defense, and it will be little comfort to the non-violent that guns are banned if instead they’re threatened or attacked with knives, clubs, or simply outnumbered by a gang.[]At some hypothetical level of violence therefore, guns will have a zero net impact either way- the deterrence value of guns would be exactly balanced by the harm done by those who misuse them.[/ul]The question would then be where on that hypothetical spectrum the US falls. It’s complicated by the fact that violence levels vary widely by region.[/li][/QUOTE]
These assertions appear to be pulled out of thin air (to be charitable). The assertion in bullet point 2 is undone by the example of the UK. The data suggest that the UK has a substrate of violent crime that is higher than the US:
Yet, the US has a homicide rate of 4.8 versus the UKs 1.2:
And, further contrary to your hypothesis, the UK’s violent crime rate has fallen to its lowest level in 33 years:
So, despite having a problem with overall violent behavior, firearms restrictions have not led the UK to have an increase in violent behavior, and furthermore, restricting access to firearms means that far less of that violence will result in people dying.