# The gun violence debate we're not having **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937 "2017-11-07T03:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/41 "2017-11-08T11:14:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Where is there more guns and similarly little to no registration / licensing? Where can I buy an AR-15 as easily as the US? They don’t count as little to no registration/licensing, but the guns issued by the Israeli and Swiss armies aren’t pocket knives. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/42 "2017-11-08T12:01:12Z")
Erm, exactly? To get a gun in Switzerland and Israel you have to have gone through a lot of training, so what does that tell you about what the USA should do if they want to have a similar homicide rate. Plus while such guns are not pocket knives, they aren’t AR-15s either. Which was the question being asked. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/43 "2017-11-08T12:47:57Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Other countries have even higher percentages of gun ownership than the US, Do they? I’m pretty sure the USA has [many more guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) per person as the next country. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/44 "2017-11-08T19:12:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s where a lot of unlawful firearm possession arrests happen though. There are good reasons to oppose things like stop and frisk, mainly unfairness since it’s not enforced equally, but there’s no doubting that it gets a lot of illegal guns off the streets. Probably more than just passing a law and then not enforcing it. The guy who stole my checkbook has been arrested for a Drive-by and felon in possession of a firearm 5 times this year, and has never spent more than 5 days in jail. There is not enforcement today, mostly due to the case load imposed by another form of prohibition (drug war) that has done nothing to solve that issue. Even if all guns were made illegal, this time of unlawful firearm possession may be common, it is trivial to steal, manufacture or illegally import firearms. I have yet to see any study that shows that firearm bans by themselves have been the primary cause of a decrease in usage by known felons and life long criminals. > [@adaher](#): > > No, it wouldn’t have stopped any mass shootings that I know of. But it’s not about mass shootings. It’s about gun violence in general. And the techniques developed in the 90s did take a lot of gun toting criminals off the streets. Show me any evidence that shows a direct correlation to the gun laws of the 90’s, which were primarily directed at cosmetics and not functions was even a leading cause of a reduction in crime. While both sides like to make claims about guns impacting crime, in the case of the US it seems that they have little effect either way. One very real impact of the “assault weapon ban” was to encourage in industry to make powerful small pistols which may have made it easier to carry a higher power pistol. But lets be clear, violent crime is at a very very low historical level right now. > [@adaher](#): > > Automatic weapons are already illegal. Most of us agree on bump stocks and those will probably be banned. AR-15s, I’m not really sure that an AR-15 is the most effective weapon to do a mass shooting. We can ban certain types of weapons, but if alternatives that are as effective are available it doesn’t accomplish anything. There have been mass shootings without AR-15 style weapons. Automatic weapons are not illegal, they are regulated. While they quit adding NEW machine guns to the registry in 1986 if you pass a background check you have to pay for a $200 transfer tax. This has increase the cost of machine guns, they are LEGAL and the shooter in Las Vegas could have easily purchased even a Browning machine gun. Some firearms like gatling guns aren’t even under that ban, but they are out of fashion. AR-15’s are popular right now because they are demonized. For most of my life it was common to hear people complain how we were putting our soldiers’ lives at risk by providing them with such an underpowered weapon. This is the problem, both of the major parties are not having a rational discussion about gun control, on one side fashion is the target of the ban and on the other side every bit of legislation is considered an attack. When the AWB was passed in the 90’s the Democrats paid for the passage by losing both houses of Congress, and while I want to solve the problem of violence the concern that our country is falling into the hands of fascism is a much larger concern for me. With current case law we would really need to amend the Constitution to significantly reduce the availability of firearms. And I am not just talking about the 2nd. The mental health ban requires a court to judge someone as being mentally ill, and any confiscation would run into issues with the 4th amendment. These issues is why the government passes cosmetic bans, to placate an electorate that is far more interested in feeling safer than actually being safer. I am a progressive, and to call out our sides bias, notice how stories focus on “gun violence” and always cook the numbers to ignore other types of attacks and over simplify the problem to one of access. Our side are just as guilty about being “true believers” as the alt-right, their boogie man is “muslims” and ours is “guns”. The fact that we are blinded by this is why it is so easy for the other side to dismiss our arguments. If one pays attention to these normal human cognitive bias arguments and ideas those ideas would probably be easier to sell. If we really concerned about preventing violence the subjects of normalizing and destigmatizing mental health and improving access to those services would be filling my facebook feed. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/45 "2017-11-08T20:48:51Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Have we really backed off on enforcing quality of life violations? We may have backed off hassling any nonwhite person the cops see. > As an example, based on BART police reports, they seem to be enforcing fare paying quite heavily - and are catching lots of people with warrants out or with drugs or weapons when they do. This is in the liberal Bay Area. you want, at targets.l. BART Police are a bunch of racist, barely competent cowboy clowns, who only became a BART cop as no “real” police force would hire them. They have refused to actually ride the trains to protect the passengers, as they claim it is too dangerous for them. Yes, too dangerous for a fit, triply armed man with body armor. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/46 "2017-11-08T22:22:22Z")
> [@Tigers2B1](#): > > The reason I own a gun is simple. Protection. The police only respond ,- they don’t protect. You have to protect yourself. Having a gun in your home makes you less safe. Not more safe. > [@](#): > > **Abstract** > > Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. > > SOURCE: [Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study | American Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858/Guns-in-the-Home-and-Risk-of-a-Violent-Death-in) ---
**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:** [November 8, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/47 "2017-11-08T22:34:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Having a gun in your home makes you less safe. Not more safe. This is a causal claim which isn’t supported by your cite. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/48 "2017-11-08T22:48:04Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is a causal claim which isn’t supported by your cite. Yes it is supported by my cite. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/49 "2017-11-08T23:25:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > California just did away with their mandatory sentencing enhancements for gun crimes, so I think it’s safe to assume we’re not all in agreement. > > OTOH, Massachusetts passed a bump stock ban with a penalty of 18 months to life in prison. Life in prison, for owning a piece of plastic :eek: I would like to see where it say that. I see that in sections 12 and 13 of MA senate bill S2179 that they added bump stocks and trigger cranks to the definition of machine gun (at least that is how I read it-I am not a lawyer)… You can read the bill [here](https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/S2179). What I can’t find is the penalties for having a machine gun. The MA general law is [here](https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws). Where are the penalties laid out? I would like to see that you can get life in prison for having a piece of plastic. ---
**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:** [November 8, 2017, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/50 "2017-11-08T23:44:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes it is supported by my cite. Which part do you think supports a causal impact? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/51 "2017-11-08T23:47:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Which part do you think supports a causal impact? The parts that you think don’t support it. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2017, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/52 "2017-11-08T23:52:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes it is supported by my cite. I don’t know if you bothered to read the paper you cited, but if you did, you certainly didn’t read it carefully. If you had done so, you would have noticed that it does not make a causal claim. What it claims is a correlation. You don’t have to take my word for it, because we can see what your citation actually says: > [@Your own cite](#): > > Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures. Your citation shows that there is a correlation between having a gun in the house and dying violently, just as there is a correlation between buying ice cream and drowning. The authors of this paper very specifically – and quite rightly – did not make the _causal_ claim that you insist they did. I don’t know why you think otherwise, but you are simply mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/53 "2017-11-09T00:48:37Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Your citation shows that there is a correlation between having a gun in the house and dying violently, just as there is a correlation between buying ice cream and drowning. The authors of this paper very specifically – and quite rightly – did not make the _causal_ claim that you insist they did. I don’t know why you think otherwise, but you are simply mistaken. So if you had to bet your life savings on whether it is anything else being the main cause of the increased risk in the study above or guns being the increased risk factor here what would you bet on? ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/54 "2017-11-09T01:34:11Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So if you had to bet your life savings on whether it is anything else being the main cause of the increased risk in the study above or guns being the increased risk factor here what would you bet on? I would bet that suicide attempts by people with guns in their home are more likely to succeed than are suicide attempts by people who do not have guns in their home; on this basis, I would expect to see the observed correlation. But the causal agent is being suicidal, not having a gun. That is, “if you are suicidal, you should not have a gun” is good advice; “don’t buy a gun, because it might make you kill yourself” is not. I would bet that people who live in high-crime areas or who are involved in violent crime are both relatively more likely to be victims of homicide and relative more likely to own a firearm, and on that basis, I would expect to see the observed correlation. But the causal agent would be living in a high-crime area and/or being involved in violent crime. “Don’t live in high-crime areas” and “don’t be involved in violent crime” is good advice; “don’t buy a gun, because it might make someone else kill you” is not. I would note that about 30% of the homicides in the sample occurred during a family argument. I would bet that people who are involved in violent arguments are more likely to be killed if a gun is involved than otherwise, and I would again expect to see observed correlation. But the causal agent would be engaging in violent arguments. “If you are prone to being involved in violent arguments, you should not have a gun in your house” is good advice. “Don’t buy a gun, because it might make you shoot your spouse” is not.[sup]1[/sup] But here’s the thing: what I would bet doesn’t matter. What matters is that you claimed your citation says something that it quite explicitly does not. The authors themselves do not assert the causal relationship that you insist your citation supports. I see no reason to prefer your interpretation of their results to their own. Rather than prevaricating, you should just admit your error and move on. * * * [sup]1[/sup] NB: I am not suggesting that everyone who is engaged in a violent argument (i.e. an argument in which violence ensues) is at fault. Being engaged in a dispute which turns violent may very well not be your choice. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/55 "2017-11-09T01:59:40Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > That is, “if you are suicidal, you should not have a gun” is good advice; “don’t buy a gun, because it might make you kill yourself” is not. Disagree. It’s not as though someone who may commit suicide at some point in their life _knows about that_, and can predict that, over the entirety of their life. I think the advice: “Don’t install a suicide booth in your home because you might make a silly decision one day that you can’t take back” is reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/56 "2017-11-09T02:47:07Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Disagree. It’s not as though someone who may commit suicide at some point in their life _knows about that_, and can predict that, over the entirety of their life. > > I think the advice: “Don’t install a suicide booth in your home because you might make a silly decision one day that you can’t take back” is reasonable. Naturally, by not having a gun, you minimize the risk of killing yourself with a gun. But I disagree is that your suggestion is reasonable _per se_. I think the actual good advice is to do some form of cost/benefit analysis. For example, recognizing that being suicidal and having access to firearms can be a dangerous combination, is it worth it to you to have a gun? In other words, “don’t install a suicide booth in your home because you might make a silly decision one day that you can’t take back” is only reasonable if one expects not to benefit overall from having a suicide booth. Personally, I don’t expect to derive any benefit from having a suicide booth, so I have quite reasonably chosen not to install one. If a suicide booth also made tasty meals every night, I might quite reasonably choose otherwise. But may I just observe that your wording is not precisely analogous to mine? Note the difference between “don’t buy a gun, because you might use it to kill yourself” on the one hand and “don’t buy a gun, because it might make you kill yourself” on the other. The latter implies a causal relation; the former does not. I entered this discussion to point out that while **Whack-a-Mole** claims his citation asserts this causal relation, **Bone** is entirely correct (and in agreement with the authors of the paper) in saying that it does not. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/57 "2017-11-09T03:14:01Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > But here’s the thing: what I would bet doesn’t matter. What matters is that you claimed your citation says something that it quite explicitly does not. The authors themselves do not assert the causal relationship that you insist your citation supports. I see no reason to prefer your interpretation of their results to their own. > > Rather than prevaricating, you should just admit your error and move on. I am not prevaricating. The assertion I was challenging is that a gun makes you more safe than not having a gun. **Bone** and you are dismissing a data point that strongly suggests having a gun in your home puts you at more risk (statistically) than not having a gun in the home. You are slicing and dicing the stats in an effort to suggest the danger is only in specific cases. Which misses the point. You (general “you”) do not know when you might be terribly depressed and make a bad choice. You do not know when you might get in an argument with your SO or whoever that gets out of hand. You do not know if a visiting child might find the gun and shoot themself or someone else. It does not matter if you have had a gun for twenty years with no issue. Past results do not indicate future results. That is the thing about stats. People seem to think it applies to everyone else. THEY are a good driver, it is everyone else that sucks. THEY are a responsible gun owner, it is everyone else that is cavalier with guns. And it may be true that YOU are a great driver and rock solid gun owner. It does not matter. When deciding public policy we look at the whole and need to base our decisions on the statistics and the statistics here are quite clear. Possessing a gun increases your risk of violent death by gun than not having a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/58 "2017-11-09T03:20:23Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > The latter implies a causal relation; the former does not. I entered this discussion to point out that while **Whack-a-Mole** claims his citation asserts this causal relation, **Bone** is entirely correct (and in agreement with the authors of the paper) in saying that it does not. I’m willing to make a bet with you, with real money, that I can show there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and an increased danger in the home because a gun is there. Willing to put your money where your mouth is? ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/59 "2017-11-09T04:48:43Z")
Tackling things out of order… > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > **Bone** and you are dismissing a data point that strongly suggests having a gun in your home puts you at more risk (statistically) than not having a gun in the home. You are slicing and dicing the stats in an effort to suggest the danger is only in specific cases. I have no idea how you’ve reached that conclusion, given that it’s utterly divorced from my argument. I’m not slicing and dicing the stats, I’m asserting that correlation does not imply causation, and causation is what matters. When you assert that a gun does not make you safer because people who have guns in the home are more likely to die violently than people who do not, you are tacitly asserting a causal relation. That is, if having a gun in the home does not _cause_ you to be more likely to die violently, than bringing a gun into the home does not increase your risk of dying violently. Similarly, if buying ice cream does not _cause_ you to be more likely to drown, then buying ice cream does not increase your risk of drowning, _even though buying ice cream and drowning are correlated._ What **Bone** and I are saying is that (a) your citation establishes is that having a gun in the home is _correlated_ with dying a violent death, but (b) what your citation does not establish is that having a gun in the home _causes_ the increased chance of violent death. We know this is true, because the authors of the study you cited wrote “the risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.” So in this particular study, the authors are unwilling to assert that they have demonstrated causation, even though you insist that they have. > [@Whack-A-Mole](#): > > When deciding public policy we look at the whole and need to base our decisions on the statistics and the statistics here are quite clear. No. In drafting policy, we need to decide whether the policy will have the desired effect. This requires us to look not at the statistics but at the causal relationships. We have not banned ice cream because we recognize that buying ice cream does not _cause_ drowning, so a ban on ice cream would not be expected to decrease drownings. Now, do I think the connection between guns and violent death is more closely causal than the connection between ice cream and drowning? Yes! I do not mean to trivialize the problem of gun violence. But that isn’t the thrust of my objection to your original post. For the umpteenth time, my objection is that _you are incorrect about what your citation **actually says** _. You claimed your citation said one thing. **Bone** claims it said another. A direct quotation from your citation establishes that he is correct: your citation demonstrates a correlation between having guns in the home and dying violently but does not assert that having guns in the home causes you to die violently. > [@Whack-A-Mole](#): > > I am not prevaricating. And yet, you continue to avoid simply admitting that you misstated what your citation actually says. That looks like prevarication to me! Turning quickly to this proposition: > [@Whack-A-Mole](#): > > I’m willing to make a bet with you, with real money, that I can show there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and an increased danger in the home because a gun is there. Why would I place a bet on a position I have not argued? Once more, with feeling: my contention isn’t that you’re wrong about this, it’s that you’re mistaken about what your citation supports. If you want to argue that your claim is true _despite_ your citation not supporting it, knock yourself out! That is not my point of contention. Frankly, it’s not clear to me that engaging with you at all is worthwhile, because you’ve somehow managed to not only misunderstand my argument but misunderstand its topic. Ordinarily I assume that if someone doesn’t understand what I have written, it is because I have been unclear. Given that you also misunderstood what your citation actually said, I assume that in this case the problem is that your reading comprehension is inadequate. ---
**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:** [November 9, 2017, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/60 "2017-11-09T05:01:04Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Bone claims it said another. To be clear, I’m not actually claiming the study says anything, just that Whack’s assertion isn’t supported by his cite. Not even close. And thanks for doing yeoman’s work on this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=4)