It did take relatively low effort to point out that your cite did not support the claim you made. It doesn’t now, and it didn’t then. I could go on about the flaws of the study, why its results should be taken with a grain of salt, etc. But the easiest aspect is to simply point out your claim was not supported by the cite. There are things that are supported by the cite that are also questionable, but at least there there is an analytic to review. Your claim is wrong on its face.
Part of the reason I took this route is because you’ve made similar claims before, that having a gun makes you less safe, etc, and things to that effect. In previous times we’ve gone through you seemed unconvinced, so suffice to say, it’s simply a shortcut to remind that your cite doesn’t support that claim.
I agree this is an important issue, but not the only issue. Certainly some groups believe that guns make them safer - police for instance. Do you think that police having firearms makes police less safe?
I am not seeing where your arguments are persuasive.
Surely if guns are an effective means of self defense you can come up with studies showing how they save more lives than they take.
Instead you prefer to mince words and and think that because correlation does not equal causation that is the end of it.
Not sure what police has to do with this. Are you suggesting that the populace should have any weapon the police have? How about any weapon the military has?
My argument, to the extent it is an argument, is that your cite doesn’t support your claim, as a factual matter. Are you saying that you are not persuaded in that you still believe your cite supports your claim?
How many questions can be answered by asking more questions? Police are relevant because they carry guns. You’ve made the assertion that having a gun in the home makes (the general) you less safe. Police typically have guns in their home which would seem to be included within your claim, so in order to explore the borders of your claim, I ask if those people fit within the claim you are making. Do they? Do you think police having guns makes them less safe?
I don’t about “studies”, and the thing you’re asking is a bit of an unknown (“how many lives are saved by guns”). We have estimates of the number of defensive gun uses per year, but there’s no way of knowing with certainty whether a particular defensive gun use averted a fatality, a non-mortal wounding, or averted an incident in which no one at all would have been harmed. We don’t have the capability to monitor alternative universes and figure out what would have happened if the gun owner hadn’t intervened.
I believe the abundance of studies on this all point in the same direction.
Just because correlation does not equal causation does not in itself say whether a given study is showing us most of the truth or not. It might be 99.9% correct or 1% correct. You have made no attempt to discern that though.
Fact is all you have hung your hat on is beating the drum of correlation does not equal causation. You have not provided other statistics or provided a coherent rebuke of the study I cited. And if you did I have a few more studies to lay on you largely coming up with similar answers.
Yet what is all consuming to you is that correlation does not equal causation and there it ends.
I think you bringing up the police is another attempt to muddy the waters. Police having a gun is a separate issue from the populace having a gun and whether they should or not is a discussion unto itself.
But I will answer your question despite it not deserving one in this thread. I think it is unclear that police are safer with guns while on the job. The Vast Majority of U.K. Police Don’t Carry Guns. They seem to do ok.
I think those same police fall into the less safe statistics as everyone else if they have those guns in their home.
Yes although I could admittedly have been clearer. I do not intend to assert that this study claims firearms cause suicide attempts or that firearms cause suicide; it does not. I do mean to assert that firearms, in this study, were the best way of succeeding at suicide attempts, so if the overall number of suicide attempts wouldn’t change if one eliminated guns, then the suicide rate would drop even if firearms do not cause suicide attempts.
Whack, I see no reason to waste further time on you.
If I made the claim that puppies are far cuter than kittens, and supported that claim with this study, I think you may argue that my study doesn’t support that claim, in fact, it’s just a link to google. Establishing whether a cited study supports a claim is really independent of the accuracy of the underlying claim itself. As a threshold matter, if you won’t concede that your claim is not supported by your cite, what further point could there be since the very basics of communication are breaking down?
I haven’t gotten to the rebuttal portion because we haven’t crossed the initial threshold.
wiki
Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[52] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[53] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[54]
Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[55] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[56] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.”
I gave a graph and some numbers; do you have anything similarly quantitative to bring to the discussion? It’s possible that restricting gun ownership did not cause a reduction in suicides for whatever reason, but going by published statistics, it does appear that suicide rate did decrease.
The study presents evidence that a particular assertion is true. On a continuum it will be somewhere from 0% right to 100% right. Most likely it is somewhere between those two.
My cite suggests my claim is true and provides some data to back it up.
So far you have provided nothing except to suggest since correlation does not equal causation the cite cannot be trusted.
That is weak and low effort on your part. You have provided nothing in the way of substantive rebuttal. Maybe the authors of the study are highly suspect because they were funded by anti-gun nuts. Maybe there is a fundamental flaw in their methodology that makes the study essentially worthless. Maybe they were cherry picking. Maybe they were p-hacking.
There are many avenues to criticize the study. You could provide studies that show something different. You have provided none except to attack me.
So I will maintain that statistically guns in the home put you at more risk than not having a gun. I maintain the study I cited is evidence of that since you have done nothing to show it is wrong except to suggest it might be wrong. If you’ve got something else bring it.
You can nitpick the numbers above if you like but for this I only mean to point out that there are a lot of guns in the hands of a lot of people in this country. Pushing the needle a few percent one way or another does not change that.
One would suppose then that with so many guns about we should have abundant examples of guns being used to save people from all sorts of bad things.
Certainly we have anecdotes of that happening but I am missing the endless stream of stories of people fending off bad guys with their guns.
I wonder how quickly we’d get some kind of gun control if we had socialized or one-payer medicine, and TPTB realized just how much one of these shootings costs - and that’s just in terms of medical bills.
Harding, Richard (1981). Firearms and Violence in Australian Life. Perth: University of Western Australia Press. p. 119. ISBN 0 85564 190 8.
Jump up ^ Newton, George; Zimring, Franklin (1968). “Firearms and Violence in American Life” (PDF). Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes & Prevention of Violence. Retrieved 8 February 2016.
Jump up ^ De Leo, Diego; Dwyer, Jonathan; Firman, David; Neulinger, Kerryn (2003-6). “Trends in hanging and firearm suicide rates in Australia: Substitution of method”. Suicide & Life – Threatening Behavior. 33 (2): 151–164. doi:10.1521/suli.33.2.151.22775. PMID 12882416. Archived from the original on 2012-07-21.
Yes it does, but see how you changed the way you are describing it? “a particular assertion” sure, just not the one you made. Here is what you said:
Here is from the conclusion of the cite you provided:
That doesn’t support your claim of causality. It doesn’t speak to the benefits of gun ownership, only the costs. This cite can’t something support your claim of being more or less safe, when it only evaluates one side of the cost/benefit analysis. And this is assuming we accept the conclusions at face value and not examine weaknesses in the methods of the study itself. But again, we’re still at threshold items.
That’s two fatal flaws of your argument. First, your cite doesn’t support your causal claim. Second, your cite only examines some potential costs, and no benefits. Hardly sufficient to support a claim of more or less safe.
We haven’t quite yet reached the same degree of controls on smoking as for guns, but the prevailing social and cultural assumption is much the same: if you must, but no more than (and subject to the conditions and restrictions that) the community as a whole considers necessary, and keep it away from the rest of us.
A whole whopping 538 pages (looks to be 5,380 individual stories give or take a few)?
Since 1968 there have been over 1.5 million gun deaths in the US. That is more Americans killed than in all US wars combined. And your cite goes back to 1958 so you have an added ten years of gun deaths to the number above.
Those 538 pages are running at about 0.35% of the total (not including the additional ten years so this number will be even lower). Not a number I would crow about.