Gun poll

[Scooter]

There is a psychotic welder who is stalking you because you don't want to be friends anymore.

[Econoline]

[Econoline]

On second thought, maybe that last one was a little too close to reality to be funny...

[rubato]

So that is a second reason to permit people to make their own choices, even if those choices appear, by statistical aggregates, to be foolish: An individual is not a mere statistical datum.

One of the findings of the studies demonstrating people's inability to gauge risk is that individuals always place themselves outside of the statistical class, believing they are far less at risk. They're not.

Oh, please.

In a household in which there are firearms and children, there is a risk that a child will kill someone with a firearm. In a household in which there are firearms but no children, there is no risk that a child will kill someone with a firearm.

That should be stunningly obvious.

Unless they have relatives, neighbors, or friends with children who visit.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

Empirical evidence does not show that having a gun protects you against crime. You can just as well claim that having dynamite, or JuJu beads will protect you against crime.

Can you at least pretend to be at all serious, rubato?

Let me help you: The empirical evidence, undisputed by anyone who is not completely deranged, is that there are times when people successfully defend themselves, by means of firearms, against criminals.

You may not like that fact. You may think that it is outweighed by other facts (accidental shootings, suicides, etc.).

But merely denying that fact does nothing more than reinforce the widespread opinion -- which I have done my best not to share; I have given you the benefit of the doubt (and defended your assertions) whenever I have thought it proper -- that when it comes to rational argument vs. your personal preferences, you throw rational argument overboard.

The evidence is clear that possessing a gun increases your chance of being murdered with a gun. It is dizzyingly obvious that while within the total group there are a few who use guns to defend themselves there is a much larger number who are killed by them. IE guns make you less safe.

There may be a few who successfully defend themselves with nitroglycerin too.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Sorry Jim, that is a terrible analogy...

Well, I maintain it's an excellent analogy...

Still awaiting your definition of a what a "damn good reason" for owning a firearm would be...

ETA:

That's simply not going to happen is it?

There's really a zero percent chance that you would finally, at long last, own up to the standard you, yourself established, stop playing sophistic games, and let everyone know, what , if any, in your opinion would be "a damn good reason" to own a firearm... It's really not that complicated...

But that's just not going to happen...

Apparently you've decided to take a rubato-type approach on this....

ETA II:

All this linguistic ping pong game playing you've done on this has done nothing but provide ballast for Andrew's argument that you simply do not believe there is any such thing as a "damn good reason" for any private citizen to ever own a firearm...

If that's what you believe, (and it's become pretty obvious at this point, that this is your view) why don't you just admit it?

[Sean]

Jim, I've made my position perfectly clear. Why don't you go ahead and read my last post in this thread without blinkers. I'm not going to respond directly to your last post because I don't want to fall out with you (again) over this. Neither am i going to allow you to browbeat me simply because i hold an opposing position to yours. You'll just have to believe whatever you wish to believe about me. So be it.

Peace.

[Lord Jim]

I don't want to fall out with you (again) over this.

Nor do I...

I like you and respect you Sean, and I don't want to go down that road again either...

So we'll just end this one here...

[Sean]

Thanks Jim. You're not such a bad old stick yourself.

Cue the "get a room" gags...

[Econoline]

Well I reckon that Econo is either the Man of Steel or Chicago's Crime Kingpin.

Fess up mate! Which is it?

Well, I've already denied being the Man of Steel...and any Crime Kingpin worthy of the name has gotta have a ginormous stash of (mostly illegal) semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms.

I'm also not this guy...

...or this guy.


(Tho I have been known to wear black a lot, and I am looking to get myself a pair of really cool shades.)

[Andrew D]

Yes, rubato, in a household in which there are firearms and sometimes children, there is a greater risk that a child will kill someone with a firearm than there is in a household in which there are firearms and never children. Thank you for that penetrating insight.

[Joe Guy]

I must say that I am also impressed by rubato's insightful proffer of profound unambiguous factuality.

[Lord Jim]

The evidence is clear that possessing a gun increases your chance of being murdered with a gun.

What is "dizzyingly obvious" is that you are a profoundly and deeply stupid and dishonest man, who is willing to repeat the same falsehoods, over and over, and over again, ad nauseating...

(I guess I'm going to have to paste this one into the same word doc that I'm using to keep my response to your "where's the lie?" idiocy regarding The Liar Krugman)

This is an interesting study, but it has some serious contradictions and flaws.

I'm going to analyze the numbers on homicide , (this study analyses both homicide and suicide , and then lumps them together to reach it's conclusion; the first major flaw) since they are obviously two completely different kinds of events, with two completely different sets of factors involved. (Suicide should be discussed separately.)

First, the contradiction, as relates to homicide. Here's the studies conclusion:

In our study, the risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide or suicide [as I said, the study's conclusion lumps these together]was greater in homes with guns

From the same study:

an estimated 40 percent of adults in the United States report keeping a gun in the home for recreational or protective purposes

According to the study's footnote, that the number comes from a Justice Department survey conducted in 2001. I can't find the original report, but I suspect the researchers may be misstating that somewhat, (substituting "adults" for "households") based on the results of this 2005 Gallup poll:

How many Americans personally own guns, and what do they use them for? A recent Gallup Poll* shows that 3 in 10 Americans personally own a gun; most gun owners say they use their guns to protect themselves against crime, for hunting, and for target shooting. Gun ownership varies by different groups in the country, with men more likely to be gun owners than women, Southerners and Midwesterners more likely than Easterners or Westerners, Republicans more so than Democrats, and older rather than younger Americans.

Gun Ownership

The poll, conducted Oct. 13-16, finds that 4 in 10 Americans report they have a gun in their homes, including 30% who say they personally own a gun and 12% who say another member of their household owns it. These results show essentially no change since this question was last asked in 2000. At that time, 27% of Americans said they personally owned a gun and 14% said another household member owned one.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ow ... erica.aspx

So, it seems to me the fair thing to do based on that, would be to substitute "households" for "adults" and then accept an estimate of somewhere around 40% or slightly higher as houesholds where a firearm is present.

Now, again, from the Oxford study rube quotes:

Nearly three quarters of suicide victims lived in a home where one or more firearms were present, compared with 42 percent of homicide victims and one third of those who died of other causes

Well, gee whiz....

We have roughly 40% of the households with firearms, and 42% of homicides occurring in households where firearms are present....

According to the Oxford study's own data, the differentiation between homicides occurring in households with firearms and without, is statistically insignificant.... not "greater"....

But it's worse than that...(here's one of the serious flaws)

Look at the methodology the Oxford study employs:

We used the death certificates for information on the decedent’s cause and manner of death and proxy-respondent interviews for all other demographic and behavioral information on the decedent. The study sample consisted of deaths that occurred in the home. Included were persons who subsequently died en route to or at a hospital. Deaths were classified by whether they were homicides (n = 490; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes E960–E969), suicides (n = 1,049; International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes E950–E959), or the result of other causes (n = 535). Accidental poisonings or poisonings of undetermined intent, unintentional firearm injuries and firearm injuries of undetermined intent, and other deaths of undetermined cause were excluded from the study sample on the basis that they could be homicides or suicides.

See the problem here? For their statistical purposes, they are classifying any death caused deliberately by a firearm as a "homicide". This must be the case because nowhere on that list of factors they excluded from their homicide by firearm criteria, does the phrase, "death by someone in the household using a firearm for self defense" appear.

In other words, in order to get to their 42% number, they have included the deaths of home invaders in the number and labeled them "homicides". This represents illegitimate methodology, and provides misleading conclusions, since shooting and killing someone who invades your home is not legally defined as "homicide".

The conclusion to be drawn from all of this, is that despite the fact that the the authors of this study went to great pains to conduct much of what they did in an apparently scientific manner, they failed to do so in some key and important ways, tainting their conclusions, and strongly suggesting that their results were driven more by an agenda than by objective inquiry.

To summarize, two decisions they made point to this, quite clearly:

1. The decision to lump two completely different kinds of actions, (suicide and homicide) together in order to be able to state their conclusion. (Since they must have realized that stating them separately wouldn't have shown a statistical difference regarding homicide)

2.The decision to lump all deliberate firearms deaths together and label them as "homicides" without regard to whether or not the person who died was a perp or a vic.

I'm really glad rube posted this, because it has given me an opportunity to illustrate something I have talked about before. (most recently in a discussion about second hand smoke) The way in which something can "look scientific" but if you really drill down you can see how by fudging and blurring key distinctions, results can be massaged to reach the conclusions that the "researchers" wanted to reach in the first place.

This study is a classic case in point.

[Lord Jim]

It is dizzyingly obvious that while within the total group there are a few who use guns to defend themselves there is a much larger number who are killed by them.

Once again:

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

What is not "dizzyingly obvious", (in fact it's a complete mystery) is how you manage eat a bowl of cereal without putting an eye out with your spoon, or find your way unaided from your backyard to your back door, or get through an entire day without soiling your trousers....(Of course I have no actual proof that you are able to accomplish these things)

Given the quality of your "contributions" to this and other forums where I have seen you scribble your crayons over the past 14 years, I stand in complete awe of your ability to somehow navigate your way through a day without inadvertently doing yourself grievous bodily injury....

[dales]

I must say that I am also impressed by rubato's insightful proffer of profound unambiguous factuality.

Where would this BBS be wothout rube's insightfulnesslessness?

[Lord Jim]

Where would this BBS be wothout rube's insightfulnesslessness?

All the empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the overall IQ level average of the board would take an immediate 20 point jump....

But what can you do? Rube's family....

And every family has its dimwitted relatives....

You just put up with them....

And besides, he provides an endless source of unintentional humor.... (which is frequently the funniest kind.)

[Joe Guy]

And besides, he provides an endless source of unintentional humor.... (which is frequently the funniest kind.)

And for the same reason I'm sad that Tim Geithner took away quad's computer privileges.

[Andrew D]

In the small city where I work (and where I used to live), we have a homicide rate that is about 20 times the national average. Almost all of the killings are by handgun, and almost all of them are related to drugs.

So how much effect do you think that an "assault weapons" ban or a "high-capacity magazines" ban or both would have on that?

[Andrew D]

There is a meaningful difference between "can't say" and "don't believe that the onus lies with me to say". I'm not the person who wants the gun. Why then should I provide the justification for having the gun?

That might fly in a society without a strong devotion to individual liberty, but free societies adhere, quite properly, to the contrary rule: The proponent of a prohibition -- any prohibition -- bears the burden of justifying the prohibition.

[Andrew D]

(Newsflash, rubato: My possessing a revolver does not entail any risk of my blowing up the neighborhood.)

However, it does entail a substantially increased risk that the revolver will be used to injure or kill a member of, or a visitor to, your household (both intentionally and unintentionally). How does that risk compare with the likelihood that the revolver will ever actually be used successfully for self defense?

The evidence on that point is in conflict. As observed above, there is evidence that it is more likely -- ninety times more likely -- that a firearm will be used to defend someone against crime than that a firearm will be used to kill someone.