# "Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 28, 2014, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471 "2014-05-28T16:41:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**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:** [June 26, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/381 "2014-06-26T19:05:24Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > 😕 It’s a fatal flaw. I mean, if you want to measure what happened after you did something, you kind of actually have to measure what happened AFTER you did something, right? It’s more than a limitation. The claim isn’t as strong as you state. Buybacks occurred after the study date, but they also occurred during the study period. In addition, there were overlapping amnesty periods that firearms could be turned in. In other words, inconclusive. Not a fatal flaw. It shows some results, but it’s not a great study since it doesn’t account for the long tail. I can’t seem to find any study that focuses on substitution over a longer period. > [@](#): > > As to your other point, I think it’s very relevant to look at why other countries don’t have the problem with guns that we have, and particularly to look at what happens when other countries change what they are doing vis a vis guns. Examining between-country differences has value, but is limited by the broad number of factors that make countries different. Examining within country differences over time seems quite valuable. I would say that examining within country differences over time is valuable - to those countries. That value ends at the border. That’s really my point about the Australia information. While it’s interesting by itself, it doesn’t inform discussion as to the US. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/382 "2014-06-26T22:03:31Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I’m one of the inflexible, militant ones and I largely exclude myself from the debate these days because the mendacity of the extremists on the other side has me to the point where I am incapable of debate. I greet every attempt at dialog with suspicion and derision. I assume that because some of them are liars that none of them ever operate from honest motives. I just don’t listen to them any more. I am far from alone in being like this. I am not even the most like this. If there is to be debate, the groups from each side clustered around the middle will have to handle it. Those on my side have heard enough lies that we no longer recognize sincere offers of debate if they are, in fact, ever offered. This. 1000X this. Plus, every time I hear the phrase, “Gun owners need to compromise,” I just about have a shit hemmorrage. “Compromise,” in the context of the larger gun rights/gun control debate, has become a meaningless word, and I now refuse to even acknowledge the existence of anyone who brings it up. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/383 "2014-06-26T22:49:16Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > This. 1000X this. > > Plus, every time I hear the phrase, “Gun owners need to compromise,” I just about have a shit hemmorrage. > > “Compromise,” in the context of the larger gun rights/gun control debate, has become a meaningless word, and I now refuse to even acknowledge the existence of anyone who brings it up. And yet the both of you have absolutely no problem participating in these threads, if only to spread venom and distrust. You call anyone that doesn’t fully support your point of view on this subject a dishonest extremist-are you just here to call people names? ---
**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 26, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/384 "2014-06-26T23:01:41Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > :dubious:What background changes the beta value in a regression equation?? What do you mean, “translates to variance or risk”? This sounds like you’re just tossing around terms that you don’t understand. Finance. > **[Beta (finance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance))** > > In finance, the beta (β or market beta or beta coefficient) is a statistic that measures the expected increase or decrease of an individual stock price in proportion to movements of the stock market as a whole. Beta can be used to indicate the contribution of an individual asset to the market risk of a portfolio when it is added in small quantity. It refers to an asset's non-diversifiable risk, systematic risk, or market risk. Beta is not a measure of idiosyncratic risk. > Beta is the hedge ratio ... > [@](#): > > In a regression equation, the beta value is a coefficient that indicates the change in the slope of the regression line for each unit of change in that variable. The variance in the model is a factor in this, and in certain models, an exponentiated beta value can index risk (like an odds ratio), but the beta value is a mathematical concept. It is what it is, regardless of your "background."I told you, the chi square is another measure of association. You keep asking what association means, so I’m explaining to you the concept and the different measures of association that exist. Can you explain that in layman’s terms? > [@](#): > > No. Not in research. Again, we’ve talked before about cause. Empirical studies don’t do “causation,” especially causation by degree. So there is no way to determine if “A” might causing “B” or whether “A” is almost certainly causing “B”? Is there a way to determine whether “A” is causing “B” rather than the other way around? ---
**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:** [June 26, 2014, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/385 "2014-06-26T23:26:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So there is no way to determine if “A” might causing “B” or whether “A” is almost certainly causing “B”? Is there a way to determine whether “A” is causing “B” rather than the other way around? Think of it like the Theory of Gravity. In scientific terms, it’s pretty much a slam dunk. It’s still a theory, in that all known evidence behaves in accordance with the theory \* _[“Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the common usage of the word “theory”, which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)_ \*I’m not a physicist so this is heavily abbreviated and simplified. Essentially, empirical studies cannot prove causation. Like, ever I think. They can show correlation, in different forms, at different degrees, and with different variables. Essentially if you add up all the different types of correlation, correcting for all the crap that happens in real life, you can theoretically paint a pretty good picture. And by pretty good, I mean like gravity. So the challenge for any data set that shows these varying levels of correlation is to demonstrate how well or poor they adjusted for these different interfering real life crap, how well the data shows the correlation that is being implied, and to determine if contrary scenario are available. From the [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation): > [@](#): > > [ol] > [li]A may be the cause of B.[/li][li]B may be the cause of A.[/li][li]some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.[/li][li]there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.[/li][li]the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.[/li][/ol] So rather than saying that a certain study doesn’t prove causation which is a weak argument, it is a stronger position to challenge the study methodology if it can be shown to be flawed. The 2.7 times figure by Kellerman for example, whose sample population was not representative. Since extrapolation on non-representative samples would lead to inaccurate results, if you can demonstrate that the sample was not representative and simultaneously not adjusted for, then it is a strong argument against the conclusion. The study here in Australia seems to indicate that a massively confiscatory law did in fact correlate with a reduction of firearm homicide and suicide. The caveats are that they were dealing with small numbers to begin with, there were simultaneous efforts at public awareness and reductions ongoing, there were downward trends in certain subsets of these populations, and there may have been significant substitution among certain demographics. And…Australia is sufficiently different than the US that any conclusion that can be drawn for that population would not be applicable to a US population. ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2014, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/386 "2014-06-26T23:36:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by \*\*Scumpup \*\* > > I’m one of the inflexible, militant ones and I largely exclude myself from the debate these days because the mendacity of the extremists on the other side has me to the point where I am incapable of debate. I greet every attempt at dialog with suspicion and derision. I assume that because some of them are liars that none of them ever operate from honest motives. I just don’t listen to them any more. I am far from alone in being like this. I am not even the most like this. If there is to be debate, the groups from each side clustered around the middle will have to handle it. Those on my side have heard enough lies that we no longer recognize sincere offers of debate if they are, in fact, ever offered. I haven’t followed this thread for a while. I just read the above posting, and from it _I couldn’t tell which side Scumpup is on_. Word for word,\* it eloquently expresses my exact experience –_as a gun control advocate_. \*Okay, maybe I’d be less inclined to use the term “militant” to describe myself. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/387 "2014-06-27T00:40:35Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And yet the both of you have absolutely no problem participating in these threads, if only to spread venom and distrust. You call anyone that doesn’t fully support your point of view on this subject a dishonest extremist-are you just here to call people names? If you have some complaint, report my post. I have nothing to say to you and there is nothing you have to say that interests me in the slightest, least of all your junior mod scolding. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/388 "2014-06-27T00:46:53Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > If you have some complaint, report my post. I have nothing to say to you and there is nothing you have to say that interests me in the slightest, least of all your junior mod scolding. What good does it do to hop into a thread just to tell people that you have no interest in discussing the topic because you don’t trust anyone with an opinion that differs from yours? ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/389 "2014-06-27T14:13:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The claim isn’t as strong as you state. Buybacks occurred after the study date, but they also occurred during the study period. In addition, there were overlapping amnesty periods that firearms could be turned in. In other words, inconclusive. Not a fatal flaw. It shows some results, but it’s not a great study since it doesn’t account for the long tail. I can’t seem to find any study that focuses on substitution over a longer period. The study ends in fucking 1998. It doesn’t even account for a short tail! It has no tail! There are studies that look at over a decade after the gun legislation. I think you mean that you just cannot find one that concludes what you want it to conclude. > [@](#): > > I would say that examining within country differences over time is valuable - to those countries. That value ends at the border. That’s really my point about the Australia information. While it’s interesting by itself, it doesn’t inform discussion as to the US. Really? Australians are just categorically different than Americans? So much so that their experience with firearms has no relationship to our experience with firearms? That’s just stupid. We interpret data and analyses from all over the world for all kinds of purposes - medical studies of French people, economics studies of England and Japan, criminological studies of the Netherlands… Why is it that when it comes to guns, there’s no comparative information to be learned? What’s special about behaviors related to guns that makes it so categorically different? The answer is that there isn’t any such magic specialness to guns. This is just more categorical thinking from gun nuts. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/390 "2014-06-27T14:24:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Can you explain that in layman’s terms? The main product of regression analyses is a regression line. For example, imagine an equation like this: y = a + b1x + b2x2…bnxn + E. This equation is derived from a set of data points with the intention of making predictions when you plug in new values. You could imagine that y is “violence score” on some continuous measure of violence, and that x1 is “gender,” and let’s just leave it at two values for gender in this data set. They could be coded as 1 for boys and 2 for girls. So, the beta weight - b1 tells you how much the predicted value (y) changes for boys relative to girls. If the weight is 5.7, say, that means that the value of the violence score y goes up by 5.7 for boys compared to girls. Let’s say that b2 is IQ, and x2 is -0.5. That would mean that for each increasing unit of IQ, the value of the violence score y is reduced by 0.5. > [@](#): > > So there is no way to determine if “A” might causing “B” or whether “A” is almost certainly causing “B”? Is there a way to determine whether “A” is causing “B” rather than the other way around? No, as Bone explained. Nobody talks about cause. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/391 "2014-06-27T14:34:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > So rather than saying that a certain study doesn’t prove causation which is a weak argument, it is a stronger position to challenge the study methodology if it can be shown to be flawed. The 2.7 times figure by Kellerman for example, whose sample population was not representative. Since extrapolation on non-representative samples would lead to inaccurate results, if you can demonstrate that the sample was not representative and simultaneously not adjusted for, then it is a strong argument against the conclusion. > > The study here in Australia seems to indicate that a massively confiscatory law did in fact correlate with a reduction of firearm homicide and suicide. The caveats are that they were dealing with small numbers to begin with, there were simultaneous efforts at public awareness and reductions ongoing, there were downward trends in certain subsets of these populations, and there may have been significant substitution among certain demographics. And…Australia is sufficiently different than the US that any conclusion that can be drawn for that population would not be applicable to a US population. Your explanation about cause was fine. What I’ve quoted above makes it clear that you are not interested in learning, you’re interested in some competition where if you can identify a limitation to a study, you’ve undone the study altogether. You sound as if observing that there are limits to the generalizability of a sample, you can just brush your hands and walk away saying “My work here is done.” How many studies do you think have no limitations whatsoever? We have to look at individual studies, understand their limitations, and take the results for what they are worth GIVEN the limitations. Given the limitations of individual studies, though, replication is the key. Replication is how a body of knowledge accumulates. So, while there may or may not have been problems of generalizability associated with the Kellermann (1993) study, when you see a similar estimate of risk in the Dahlberg et al (2004) study, you feel more confident that the conclusions of Kellermann were not undone by the generalizability issue. When you see a meta-analysis that combines data across studies, like Anglemyer et al (2014) that finds that the risk for death by homicide is about doubled when a gun is in the home, you feel very comfortable that the Kellermann sample is not a fundamental flaw. ---
**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 27, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/392 "2014-06-27T14:37:32Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > If you have some complaint, report my post. I have nothing to say to you and there is nothing you have to say that interests me in the slightest, least of all your junior mod scolding. Well, I appreciate your contribution, as it represents a nice example of the content-free kind of post I’ve come to expect from gun advocates. I point to it as evidence in predictions for other people about the capacity for thoughtfulness and rationality that is possible from gun advocates. I’m grateful to you. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/393 "2014-06-27T14:39:54Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > The study ends in fucking 1998. It doesn’t even account for a short tail! It has no tail! Gun buybacks began in 1996. Short tail, no tail, however you’d like to characterize it. It does include a portion of the period of the law in question. Your previous statement that it had a fatal flaw implying it didn’t measure the results period has merit, but not as strongly as you suggest. > [@](#): > > There are studies that look at over a decade after the gun legislation. I think you mean that you just cannot find one that concludes what you want it to conclude. I said I could not find one - at all. You seem to have access to scholarly research type places that typically require registration. Can you find one? The type in question is one that has a longer study period, and focuses on substitution or at a minimum, draws conclusions on substitution. > [@](#): > > Really? Australians are just categorically different than Americans? So much so that their experience with firearms has no relationship to our experience with firearms? That’s just stupid. We interpret data and analyses from all over the world for all kinds of purposes - medical studies of French people, economics studies of England and Japan, criminological studies of the Netherlands… > > Why is it that when it comes to guns, there’s no comparative information to be learned? What’s special about behaviors related to guns that makes it so categorically different? Yes, Australians are categorically different than Americans when it comes to guns, history, culture, laws, etc. The degree of that difference and the impact it has on comparisons and their relative value is surely debatable. And while I think in total there may be some comparative value, I find it so small as to be meaningless. So not that it has no relationship, but none worth expending effort over. You expressed similar thoughts, though the degree is different: > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Examining between-country differences has value, but is limited by the broad number of factors that make countries different. So the question is really the limitations. That is somewhat of a tertiary topic. First you’d have to conclude about the US, then about the foreign country, then about how that foreign country relates back to the US, with each step along the way introducing noise. What parallels do you think you can draw then, and how do you control for the differences? In other words, to what degree is the comparison limited and how would you mitigate those limitations? That’s what you have to answer when you introduce foreign country experience. Btw, can you respond to [post #379](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17496763&postcount=379)? ---
**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 27, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/394 "2014-06-27T16:51:20Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > One should not necessarily reduce the other, but it is an important factor to consider when evaluating legislation. > > Consider the hypothetical - a law is passed that banned and magically confiscated all firearms in the US. After many many years, and controlling for all variables, everyone agrees and determines that pre ban we had X level of intentional firearm death (homicide and suicide), and X + Y level of intentional death (all methods). After the ban, intentional firearm death is now zero, but intentional death (all methods) is still at X + Y. In other words, perfect 100% substitution and no reduction in intentional deaths. > > Would you consider that a successful law? If you do not, then it should make sense why it’s important to look at non-firearm homicide. If you consider the hypothetical successful, then looking at non-firearm homicide wouldn’t make sense. > > Here’s what I think - if your goal is to reduce prevalence of firearms, then the hypothetical is successful. If your goal is to reduce intentional death, it’s a complete failure, at the cost of liberty. If restrictions on firearms did not result in an overall reduction in harmful outcomes (e.g., homicides, suicides, injuries, accidents and gun crimes), then I would agree that the restrictions were not worth it. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/395 "2014-06-27T19:57:29Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What I’ve quoted above makes it clear that you are not interested in learning, you’re interested in some competition where if you can identify a limitation to a study, you’ve undone the study altogether. You sound as if observing that there are limits to the generalizability of a sample, you can just brush your hands and walk away saying “My work here is done.” I wasn’t aware that refuting evidence is an indication of lack of interest in learning. This is a debate forum after all, perhaps you’ve lost your way? Can you identify a factual error in the part you quoted from me? In any event this is essentially what you’ve done [walk away] when you dismiss [the results of the NCVS survey](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17445246&postcount=63) because the data is self reported. I’m just not drawing a conclusion about your interest in learning. Depending on the nature and magnitude of the limitation, yes there are such that would be, as you say, fatal flaws. Not to say that the Australian study in question suffers from this. The study itself identified the same weaknesses I did (it’s where I pulled them from after all), and I do tend to agree with their conclusions. Magnitude of substitution, the predictive value and how those would translate to other countries was not part of the study and are really the main areas of my interest. > [@](#): > > Given the limitations of individual studies, though, replication is the key. Replication is how a body of knowledge accumulates. So, while there may or may not have been problems of generalizability associated with the Kellermann (1993) study, when you see a similar estimate of risk in the Dahlberg et al (2004) study, you feel more confident that the conclusions of Kellermann were not undone by the generalizability issue. > > When you see a meta-analysis that combines data across studies, like Anglemyer et al (2014) that finds that the risk for death by homicide is about doubled when a gun is in the home, you feel very comfortable that the Kellermann sample is not a fundamental flaw. Without commenting on the value of any of the above referenced studies (if you wish to discuss those, please present their findings with a link to the actual studies), it’s great that you understand the value of replication. So in[earlier threads](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725137)where we talk about DGU, and there have been [at least 13 other](http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html) studies that have all estimated[multiple hundreds of thousands](http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html) of incidents, you wouldn’t just disregard them all since they are all directionally consistent. Oh wait, that’s what you did. Your stated reason was that you can’t rely on self reported incidents - but of course the Anglemyer study you reference above uses firearm accessibility by survey interviews mostly. And the Dahlberg study suffers from the same weaknesses as other studies that purport to show similar results - that it can not be inferred whether people are acquiring firearms as a result of their already existing environment, or the firearm acquisition causes the circumstances in their environment. Not only that, like other studies in this fashion, it doesn’t distinguish between events where the firearm present in the residence are used or if the firearm used was brought from outside. That is a critical piece of information to determine any kind of causal theory. We were having this same discussion in the other thread, and then you decided not to respond any further. Feel free to respond to[post #63](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17445246&postcount=63) in that thread. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > If restrictions on firearms did not result in an overall reduction in harmful outcomes (e.g., homicides, suicides, injuries, accidents and gun crimes), then I would agree that the restrictions were not worth it. Great, thanks for answering. So you acknowledge there is a cost / benefit aspect to how we should craft firearm laws. You have been diligently pointing out the costs, how have you analyzed the benefits to come to your conclusions? ---
**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 27, 2014, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/396 "2014-06-27T20:17:57Z")
What are the 13 studies? How is 65,000 consistent with 2.5 million? That’s a hell of a lot of rounding there. And yes, they all suffer from the same fundamental flaw - a flaw that is revealed when one actually looks at the reports. Show me the results from surveys that remove the incidents of self-defense started by the informant, or that are obviously fabricated. Of course if you see 65,000 and 2.5 million as consistent, your judgment might be too far gone. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2014, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/397 "2014-06-27T21:29:32Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > What are the 13 studies? [Linked above.](http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html) > [@](#): > > Survey: Implied number of def. gun uses\*\* > Field 3,052,717 > Bordua 1,414,544 > Cambridge Reports n.a. > DMIa 2,141,512 > DMIb 1,098,409 > Hart 1,797,461 > Ohio 771,043 > Time/CNN n.a. > Mauser 1,487,342 > Gallup 777,153 > Gallup 1,621,377 > L.A. Times 3,609,682 > Tarrance 764,036 Unfortunately I can’t seem to format that in a way that isn’t crappy looking. Put in another way - from the [report that the Obama Administration pushed through executive order](http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence_2013.pdf): > [@](#): > > Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). 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). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > How is 65,000 consistent with 2.5 million? That’s a hell of a lot of rounding there. Who is saying that? Perhaps your judgement is too far gone because you are seeing things that aren’t there? Differences in estimates are expected due to methodology differences. Regardless, all point to a significant number of DGU. But it’s great that you can rely on data that is replicated across studies to form conclusions, just only in areas you agree with, right? Any response to this: > [@Bone](#): > > So you acknowledge there is a cost / benefit aspect to how we should craft firearm laws. You have been diligently pointing out the costs, how have you analyzed the benefits to come to your conclusions? But hey, at least here you’ve mostly not omitted relevant information or changed the wording of various conclusions from the studies you are referencing in this thread. Congratulations on that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/398 "2014-06-27T21:40:12Z")
By the way, is a score of 19 on 50 good for someone skeet shooting for the first time? Last Saturday, and all. ---
**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:** [June 27, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/399 "2014-06-27T21:41:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > By the way, is a score of 19 on 50 good for someone skeet shooting for the first time? > > Last Saturday, and all. Sounds like a good time - and that is good. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2014, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471/400 "2014-06-27T21:58:56Z")
Pricey, though. Worked out to two bucks a shot. When the girlfriend’s wrist is better, she wants to try it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/your-dead-kids-dont-trump-my-constitutional-rights/689471.md?page=21)