If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "In the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian"   (salon.com) divider line 522
    More: Obvious, making excuses, New York City Police Department  
•       •       •

10857 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Sep 2013 at 3:27 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



522 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-18 01:29:00 PM

Jackpot777: Pockafrusta: Stupid article is stupid. THE reason the U.S. has never been attacked by ground troops in the modern era is because of armed civilians.

cough, oceans, cough


So, you are saying that modern countries like Mexico can't cross the oceans as well as Britain did 200 years ago?  Racist a bit ain't ya?

Also, ever since the advent of semi-auto, not muzzle loaders, the US has not been invaded.  Coincidence?  I think not!!!
 
2013-09-18 01:30:33 PM

I_C_Weener: Jackpot777: Pockafrusta: Stupid article is stupid. THE reason the U.S. has never been attacked by ground troops in the modern era is because of armed civilians.

cough, oceans, cough

So, you are saying that modern countries like Mexico can't cross the oceans as well as Britain did 200 years ago?  Racist a bit ain't ya?

Also, ever since the advent of semi-auto, not muzzle loaders, the US has not been invaded.  Coincidence?  I think not!!!


We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin and Telephone.
 
2013-09-18 01:31:13 PM

Calipataa: If you're black, you're 5 times as likely to be shot by someone else as you are to shoot yourself.



He speaks the truth!

And there's a 90% chance that the person who shoots any given black person will ALSO be black.

i1121.photobucket.com

Blacks represent a massively disproportionate number of murder victims - and perpetrators.

"Whites", OTOH, are disproportionately underrepresented in as both victims and perpetrators.

But the latter isn't because of George Zimmerman types running around killing helpless Skittle buyers.

No, the fact is that blacks kill over twice as many whites as the reverse.


/Not that the media or the President notices
 
2013-09-18 01:34:37 PM
liam76:

Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

That is like claiming you know a person is in more danger of getting an accident because of the car they drive.

We're talking comparative risks here. A gun (and I'm talking guns for personal protection, not long guns for hunting) might save your life, might take your life. More like a seatbelt than a car. Driving a car is less safe than not driving a car. But we decide that the positives outweigh the negatives. Likewise with gun ownership - there are upsides and downsides, mostly involving death and injury. Might save your live, might take your life. More likely to take your life - therefore a bad bet to own one, if you believe in, you know, statistics and stuff. Like wearing a seatbelt. Could kill you. More likely to save you. Guns are the opposite. But maybe you're one of those special people who would get trapped in their burning car by a seatbelt, and is going to fight off a mob of home invaders with your awesome Desert Eagle, instead of blowing your brains out with it when you've drunk yourself into deep sobbing depression after your lover has run off to join the circus. 

Calipataa: But I feel less safe, not more safe, thinking that the average moron around me might be packing, so I'd like to see gun ownership restricted. Not eliminated, restricted.

So you want to restrict consitutional rights because of how you feel?


Bad semantics. Ok, let me rephrase. I'm pretty sure I'm less safe walking down the street if the average moron around me is packing. Unlike said moron, who "feels" safer with his precious gun.
 
2013-09-18 01:34:47 PM

I_C_Weener: We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin and Telephone.


Cotton Gin was invented in 1790s.  We had the bloody Brittish in New Orleans in 1814.
 
2013-09-18 01:35:55 PM
Amos Quito:

No, the fact is that blacks kill over twice as many whites as the reverse.

And white just kill themselves. Yay guns!!
 
2013-09-18 01:36:54 PM

Calipataa: Bad semantics. Ok, let me rephrase. I'm pretty sure I'm less safe walking down the street if the average moron around me is packing. Unlike said moron, who "feels" safer with his precious gun.


Ok, so you moved from feelings to a hunch?  Still not very convincing.
 
2013-09-18 01:41:58 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: Bad semantics. Ok, let me rephrase. I'm pretty sure I'm less safe walking down the street if the average moron around me is packing. Unlike said moron, who "feels" safer with his precious gun.

Ok, so you moved from feelings to a hunch?  Still not very convincing.


Oh for fark's sake, let me use the English language, ok? You know like when someone says, "Um, I'm pretty sure Liberace was gay."

Read it as :"The preponderance of statistical evidence points to the fact that..."

Is that better for you?

There's plenty of stats that more guns = more death by guns, do I need to dig up more farking studies from Harvard, BU, Johns Hopkins, etc. etc.
 
2013-09-18 01:42:36 PM

davemchine: I have a friend who lives in a rough part of town. He has stopped at least two home invasions, while he was inside the house, by displaying his own weapon (shotgun). If he had not been armed he almost surely would have been harmed by the invader. Unfortunately there is still a need to defend ourselves in this manner.


I lived in a rough part of Philly and had just gotten back from trap shooting and was cleaning my shotgun to put it away and I heard something in the front room. I go out and find a guy trying to crawl around the burglar bars to get in. I suggested he move along and he did.
 
2013-09-18 01:43:03 PM

HeadLever: I_C_Weener: We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin and Telephone.

Cotton Gin was invented in 1790s.  We had the bloody Brittish in New Orleans in 1814.


Your point being? Or are you going to the coveted "technically correct" award.
 
2013-09-18 01:43:45 PM

Calipataa: HeadLever: I_C_Weener: We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin and Telephone.

Cotton Gin was invented in 1790s.  We had the bloody Brittish in New Orleans in 1814.

Your point being? Or are you going to the coveted "technically correct" award.


Gahh! Going FOR, not to. Stupid fingers + autocorrect!!
 
2013-09-18 01:44:48 PM

monoski: davemchine: I have a friend who lives in a rough part of town. He has stopped at least two home invasions, while he was inside the house, by displaying his own weapon (shotgun). If he had not been armed he almost surely would have been harmed by the invader. Unfortunately there is still a need to defend ourselves in this manner.

I lived in a rough part of Philly and had just gotten back from trap shooting and was cleaning my shotgun to put it away and I heard something in the front room. I go out and find a guy trying to crawl around the burglar bars to get in. I suggested he move along and he did.


You know, in Brooklyn I did the same thing without a shotgun, and it worked the same way!
 
2013-09-18 01:47:01 PM

Calipataa: stats that more guns = more death by guns


Why is that even news?  More cars = more death by cars; more cheesburgers with fries = more heart disease.  That concept, the way you present it, is useless in the context of actual risk to an 'innocent' individual.

Some folks don't like cars and cheeseburgers, but there is no one trying to ban them (other than the moonbat Bloomberg, anyway).
 
2013-09-18 01:49:37 PM

liam76: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: liam76: Regardless of the sellers knowledge, the buyer is breaking the law.

Perhaps if the seller knew the buyer was a criminal he wouldn't sell him a gun. A background check would be helpful with that.

It would help, but absent an overhaul on how private guns transactions are performed it would only be a dent.


Let's do that then. See? We agree on something.
 
2013-09-18 01:50:01 PM

Calipataa: Your point being?


That the point of 'We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin' is not the truth.

/Why do you hate the truth?
 
2013-09-18 02:00:57 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: stats that more guns = more death by guns

Why is that even news?  More cars = more death by cars; more cheesburgers with fries = more heart disease.  That concept, the way you present it, is useless in the context of actual risk to an 'innocent' individual.

Some folks don't like cars and cheeseburgers, but there is no one trying to ban them (other than the moonbat Bloomberg, anyway).


I am arguing that precisely the purchase and carrying of defensive firearms decreases rather than increases an individual's safety. The numbers back me up. I am arguing that the danger posed by the good guy with a gun to himself and those around him outweighs the potential defensive usefulness of said gun.
 
2013-09-18 02:02:09 PM

HeadLever: I_C_Weener: We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin and Telephone.

Cotton Gin was invented in 1790s.  We had the bloody Brittish in New Orleans in 1814.


Dammit.
 
2013-09-18 02:03:29 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: Your point being?

That the point of 'We've also not been invaded since the invention of the Cotton Gin' is not the truth.

/Why do you hate the truth?


Ah, so you were going for technically correct. Good for you! I believe the original point was that we haven't been invaded in A REALLY FREAKING LONG TIME.
 
2013-09-18 02:05:56 PM

Calipataa: I am arguing that precisely the purchase and carrying of defensive firearms decreases rather than increases an individual's safety. The numbers back me up


That I can agree on, but it also increases the ability of somone to defend themselves when something bad does happen.  It is a tradeoff that many are willing to take.
 
2013-09-18 02:06:16 PM

Calipataa: A gun (and I'm talking guns for personal protection, not long guns for hunting) might save your life, might take your life. More like a seatbelt than a car. Driving a car is less safe than not driving a car. But we decide that the positives outweigh the negatives. Likewise with gun ownership - there are upsides and downsides, mostly involving death and injury. Might save your live, might take your life. More likely to take your life - therefore a bad bet to own one, if you believe in, you know, statistics and stuff.


The stuff you believe in there is bad logic. A bit of "correlation=causation" and ignoring how personal habits effect safety.

Statistically there are types of cars that are more likely to be in accidents. Now some of that is due to inherent safety features, breaking distance, rollover, etc. Some of it is because asshole drivers are drawn to faster cars. Making a conclusion about the safety of a car by looking at results that ignore the habits of the driver will give you a bad conclusion.

Saying it makes me less safe, and ignoring any of my habits with the gun only makes sense if you think the gun is more likely to bring harm to my house.


Calipataa: Bad semantics. Ok, let me rephrase. I'm pretty sure I'm less safe walking down the street if the average moron around me is packing. Unlike said moron, who "feels" safer with his precious gun


I am for CCW being allowed, but only after a fairly in depth background and some class/range time.
 
2013-09-18 02:12:46 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: I am arguing that precisely the purchase and carrying of defensive firearms decreases rather than increases an individual's safety. The numbers back me up

That I can agree on, but it also increases the ability of somone to defend themselves when something bad does happen.  It is a tradeoff that many are willing to take.


See: seatbelt analogy
 
2013-09-18 02:15:06 PM
liam76:

Statistically there are types of cars that are more likely to be in accidents. Now some of that is due to inherent safety features, breaking distance, rollover, etc. Some of it is because asshole drivers are drawn to faster cars. Making a conclusion about the safety of a car by looking at results that ignore the habits of the driver will give you a bad conclusion.

Saying it makes me less safe, and ignoring any of my habits with the gun only makes sense if you think the gun is more likely to bring harm to my house.


It is always safest to assume you are average, when assessing risk. Most people think they are better than average drivers. Obviously that is not true. Same with responsible gun owners.
 
2013-09-18 02:19:39 PM

Calipataa: Ah, so you were going for technically correct. Good for you! I believe the original point was that we haven't been invaded in A REALLY FREAKING LONG TIME.


Adding an adverb to the adjective does not diminish the adjective in any way, shape or form when the statement is demonstratively false.  If he wanted to make the point about it being a long time, maybe his examples should have been researched a bit better, donchathink?
 
2013-09-18 02:22:26 PM

Calipataa: seatbelt analogy


Seatbelts allow defense of one's person when threatend by muggers or rapist?  Hmm, I never knew that.  I may have to carry a spare in my pocket now.
 
2013-09-18 02:30:29 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: seatbelt analogy

Seatbelts allow defense of one's person when threatend by muggers or rapist?  Hmm, I never knew that.  I may have to carry a spare in my pocket now.


Imagine me saying this in a slow 'I'm talking to a particularly stupid Labrador retriever' voice:

Seatbelts increase one's safety in some circumstances, decrease it in others. They increase it more often than they decrease it. The same thing is true for gun ownership. Owning a gun can increase your safety in some circumstances, and decrease it in others. Whereas wearing a seatbelt increases your safety in more situations than it decreases it, owning a gun, particularly a handgun, has been shown statistically to decrease your safety more than increases it.

Again, a seatbelt (read: wearing a seatbelt) can save your life, or it can kill you. It's more likely to save your life. A gun (read: owning a gun in your home) can save your life, or it can kill you. It's more likely to kill you.
 
2013-09-18 02:32:51 PM

HeadLever: Calipataa: Ah, so you were going for technically correct. Good for you! I believe the original point was that we haven't been invaded in A REALLY FREAKING LONG TIME.

Adding an adverb to the adjective does not diminish the adjective in any way, shape or form when the statement is demonstratively false.  If he wanted to make the point about it being a long time, maybe his examples should have been researched a bit better, donchathink?


Or you could have just read it as 'a long time' instead of nitpicking. Up to you, I guess.
 
2013-09-18 02:42:04 PM

Calipataa: monoski: davemchine: I have a friend who lives in a rough part of town. He has stopped at least two home invasions, while he was inside the house, by displaying his own weapon (shotgun). If he had not been armed he almost surely would have been harmed by the invader. Unfortunately there is still a need to defend ourselves in this manner.

I lived in a rough part of Philly and had just gotten back from trap shooting and was cleaning my shotgun to put it away and I heard something in the front room. I go out and find a guy trying to crawl around the burglar bars to get in. I suggested he move along and he did.

You know, in Brooklyn I did the same thing without a shotgun, and it worked the same way!


Normally I would have cleaned it, locked the trigger and put it away. I don't think of guns as being defensive items, it is just sport for me and bad timing for the guy trying to rob my apt.
 
2013-09-18 02:42:12 PM

Calipataa: liam76:

Statistically there are types of cars that are more likely to be in accidents. Now some of that is due to inherent safety features, breaking distance, rollover, etc. Some of it is because asshole drivers are drawn to faster cars. Making a conclusion about the safety of a car by looking at results that ignore the habits of the driver will give you a bad conclusion.

Saying it makes me less safe, and ignoring any of my habits with the gun only makes sense if you think the gun is more likely to bring harm to my house.

It is always safest to assume you are average, when assessing risk. Most people think they are better than average drivers. Obviously that is not true. Same with responsible gun owners.


You are missing the point. If you are an average driver, you aren't going to do the "asshole" driver things associated with sports cars or other high risk cars that makes them statistically "more dangerous".

You also missed the correlation/causation bit. Having a gun is more dangerous because many of people who live in dangerous places or do dangerous things (criminals) have guns.
 
2013-09-18 03:01:06 PM
Several years ago in Colorado Springs, a guy killed 2 people in a church parking lot and then went inside the church and was promptly killed by a security guard. He had killed a few people in the Denver area before he came down.

And because it's Colorado Springs, a few months later when the security guard came out as a lesbian, she was promptly fired by the church council.
 
2013-09-18 03:06:05 PM

Calipataa: Or you could have just read it as 'a long time' instead of nitpicking


You mean I can just take an arugment and read it how I wish instead of what was actally said?  Hmmm, no wonder folks like you are so bad at keeping your arguments on target.
 
2013-09-18 03:13:24 PM

HeadLever: on target.


/you like 1911s, don't you, squidward?
 
2013-09-18 04:40:11 PM

BayouOtter: Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.

A) How many people get shot in homes that contain no guns (during home invasions/robberies)?

B) How many people get shot in homes with guns (accidental or intentional)?

Do you think the answer to 'A' is the bigger number?

The burden falls on you to prove the point, not for me to disprove it.


Oh. You've got nothing.

Here. Let me help.

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."
 
2013-09-18 04:42:16 PM
But almost all were started by them? Well, never start what you can't finish I guess.
 
2013-09-18 04:50:10 PM

kronicfeld: feckingmorons: He didn't shoot anyone. He was armed, when he wrestled with others for the weapon used to shoot everyone. You might want to read the headline.

Yes, you are literally correct, given the particular phrasing of the headline: he was an armed civilian who was partially involved in subduing the shooter. Of course, given that the gun in his pocket had no role whatsoever in what transpired, his being armed was utterly meaningless. His being armed had as much relevance as his gender, race, or sexual orientation: none.


You don't get to change the argument subject in order to win, Kronicfeld, that's the same as lying about your sexual preference.  The postulate was posted, deal with it and nothing else or go farking kill yourself for being too stupid to internet.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2013-09-18 04:59:20 PM
http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88
List of 15 mass shootings stopped by Armed Citizens
 
2013-09-18 05:05:03 PM

Calipataa: sid244: FTFA: "Moreover, according to the Mother Jones study, there is not a single piece of evidence that any shooters deliberately chose to target locations where guns were prohibited."

Ummm, yes there is.  Have you heard of a mass shooting at a gun store?  What about a mass shooting at a gun range?  Hasn't happened.  Why, because even crazy  people know not to shoot up on of those places.

/mass shootings, not individual shootings
//There have been shootings at gun ranges.
///http://abcnews.go.com/US/seal-chris-kyle-allegedly-killed-marine/ story ?id=18389238

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a bike shop? Or at a boat ramp? Or at a retractable roof stadium? Or at a fry-bread taco stand? Hint: Mass shootings happen at places with masses of people. Or just places, even. Gun shops and run ranges are a small subset of 'places'.


Are guns permitted at a bike shop, boat ramp or retractable roof stadium?  I'll give you boat ramp.  What about gun shows?  Masses of people, not too many shootings.  My point: (mass) shootings typically don't happen where there is a plethora of guns.
 
2013-09-18 05:22:02 PM
I guess this thread has shown you, eh Salon.

It's clear, from the evidence presented that armed citizens make a difference in almost .000003% of armed conflicts.
 
2013-09-18 05:45:09 PM
Having been active duty most my adult life and having also grown up on military bases, i can assure you that if you want to kill a bunch of unarmed individuals, a military base is a great place to start. The MP/SF are VERY diligent in making sure anybody with a legally purchased gun has it in armory.
 
2013-09-18 06:05:32 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.

A) How many people get shot in homes that contain no guns (during home invasions/robberies)?

B) How many people get shot in homes with guns (accidental or intentional)?

Do you think the answer to 'A' is the bigger number?

The burden falls on you to prove the point, not for me to disprove it.

Oh. You've got nothing.

Here. Let me help.

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."


I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people who drink from the statistics? I ask because I don't drink.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people who do drugs from the statistics? I ask because I don't do drugs.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove suicides from the statistics? I ask because I know myself well enough to know I won't commit suicide, much to the dismay of many farkers.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people without education from the statistics...

I suspect there's a lot of noise in those statistics.
 
2013-09-18 06:09:21 PM

Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Uranus Is Huge!: BayouOtter: Calipataa: But more importantly, I *know* that, on average, putting a gun in your home puts you in danger. You can spin all the scenarios you want, fact is, you're more likely to shoot yourself, or your lover, or your ass, than a bad guy.

I'm so interested to see your statistics. Are they from Kellerman? I'll bet they are.

A) How many people get shot in homes that contain no guns (during home invasions/robberies)?

B) How many people get shot in homes with guns (accidental or intentional)?

Do you think the answer to 'A' is the bigger number?

The burden falls on you to prove the point, not for me to disprove it.

Oh. You've got nothing.

Here. Let me help.

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people who drink from the statistics? I ask because I don't drink.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people who do drugs from the statistics? I ask because I don't do drugs.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove suicides from the statistics? I ask because I know myself well enough to know I won't commit suicide, much to the dismay of many farkers.

I wonder what that statistic looks like once you remove people without education from the statistics...

I suspect there's a lot of noise in those statistics.


I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.
 
2013-09-18 06:15:40 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.


I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.
 
2013-09-18 06:20:39 PM

Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.

I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.


You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.
 
2013-09-18 06:22:07 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Uranus Is Huge!:

Oh. You've got nothing.

Here. Let me help.

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."


I'm really tired of Kellerman and studies based on his shoddy work.

The '93 study was by Arthur Kellerman, a pediatrician and outspoken gun control advocate who has been known for producing hilariously biased studies that instead of random nationwide sampling elects to study data from very specific areas which exhibit outlying trends in order to support his foregone conclusion that guns are bad.

The first time he produced a study like this was in 1986 when claimed that gun ownership made you 43 times more likely to be killed than to use a gun in self-defense. He produced this statistic by selecting a county with the lowest rates of self-defense but highest rates of suicide he could find- King County, WA- and then produced a ratio of firearm self-defense vs gun deaths (the vast majority being suicide.) He got called on his terrible methodology by criminologists in the same medical journal he originally published in and produced another in response, halving his original claim to "22 times more likely." When that was criticized he switched up methodology and produced the '93 study.

If you read the full text of the '93 study instead of just the summary you can see where the problems begin to arise. Instead of a nationwide randomized sample he kept using King County but also cherry-picked two other oddly specific areas as well- Shelby County, Tennessee and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. This led to a massive (and probably intentional) overrepresentation of African-Americans and those living below the poverty line; that means the study is comprised mostly of the poorest and most oppressed people in some of the most unusually violent cities like Memphis and Cleveland in order to produce a very specific result. Narrowing the data further to ensure a favorable result, it also only looked at homicides that occurred inside the home of the victim (which were only 23.9% of the total homicides in the case study area.)

Diving into the body of the work you can also see it failed to find more than a very casual correlation between gun ownership and risk of death, with many other many things presenting a much higher odds-risk ratio than the 1.6 they found for "guns in the home." Table 3 shows far higher correlation between homicide and things like living alone (3.4,) living in a household where ANY member has ANY sort of arrest history (4.2,) renting a home instead of owning (5.9,) drug use (9,) alcohol consumption (as high as 20,) and many other common things. The fact that they only concentrate on gun ownership in the conclusion as "significant" while failing to frame it against their other findings goes to show you this was a study meant not to objectively identify risks but work towards a predetermined and leading conclusion. Many other problems and biases that have been pointed out by in works by people like Kleck and Schaffer include:
The correlation they found with handguns was nowhere near as strong as the one between rifles and shotguns, which is... strange, to say the least, as there should be no mechanism that encourages others to kill you just for owning a pistol rather than a shotgun. This begs the question- even though there's a casual correlation between guns in the home and slightly elevated homicide risks, are they actually related? How? They fail to prove causation or even show a correlation more important than living in an apartment, which means it's far from a conclusive finding.

It relied on self-reporting to determine gun ownership, when Schaffer looked at the data that Kellerman finally provided 5 years after the fact he found a large discrepancy between the amount of gun ownership reported between the cases and controls that was seemingly not adjusted for.

It doesn't prove you're more likely to die FROM a gun, as per the study's own data less than 50% of the murders were with a firearm (which is lower than the national average of ~66%.) It doesn't prove that self-defense is likely to increase your risk of death as the majority of those killed (56.2%) were unarmed and there was no evidence of resistance. Of the 43.8% who lived in a household with a gun and who died attempting to defend themselves only 5% actually used a firearm, which is the lowest recorded death rate of any means of defense amongst the victims who tried to fight back. That could actually suggest it's the most successful method, although I can't use the evidence provided just here to prove that as it's not a comprehensive self-defense study but a very narrow and specific mortality study. At the same time, however, that narrow scope fails to prove Kellerman's point either.

Unlike his previous studies where he was comparing actual self-defense to gun deaths here he included justifiable homicide by police and private citizens defending themselves in the gun death figure, in order to pad it as much as possible. He also DID still include illegal activities like drug-dealing, as is evidenced by the data in Table 1.

If you dig into it like Kleck and Schaffer did it reads more like "20 years ago some really poor people who lived in the shiattiest places we could hand-pick were murdered at home by their friends and family. Some of those people owned a handgun, although far more lived alone or in apartments or drank" rather than "there is firm evidence using a gun in self-defense will get you killed everywhere in all situations." They were able to find weak correlation in a tailor-made case study, not causation in a full study of the US.
On top of that, a crime study from two decades ago is incredibly outdated. Homicide rates have more than halved since then, and homicide amongst African-Americans (the primary group represented here) has dropped dramatically since '92. No matter what way you slice it it's not exactly convincing proof to use in an argument now, over two decades later.
 
2013-09-18 06:24:46 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.

I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.

You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.


If you have alcohol in your house you are statistically more likely to harm a loved one in a drunken rage.

Of course, I have alcohol in my house for guests, I don't drink, and am not married and am without kids.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that my odds are the same as an alcoholic's.
 
2013-09-18 06:27:52 PM

BayouOtter: Uranus Is Huge!: Uranus Is Huge!:

Oh. You've got nothing.

Here. Let me help.

"A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

I'm really tired of Kellerman and studies based on his shoddy work.

The '93 study was by Arthur Kellerman, a pediatrician and outspoken gun control advocate who has been known for producing hilariously biased studies that instead of random nationwide sampling elects to study data from very specific areas which exhibit outlying trends in order to support his foregone conclusion that guns are bad.

The first time he produced a study like this was in 1986 when claimed that gun ownership made you 43 times more likely to be killed than to use a gun in self-defense. He produced this statistic by selecting a county with the lowest rates of self-defense but highest rates of suicide he could find- King County, WA- and then produced a ratio of firearm self-defense vs gun deaths (the vast majority being suicide.) He got called on his terrible methodology by criminologists in the same medical journal he originally published in and produced another in response, halving his original claim to "22 times more likely." When that was criticized he switched up methodology and produced the '93 study.

If you read the full text of the '93 study instead of just the summary you can see where the problems begin to arise. Instead of a nationwide randomized sample he kept using King County but also cherry-picked two other oddly specific areas as well- Shelby County, Tennessee and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. This led to a massive (and probably intentional) overrepresentation of African-Americans and those living below the poverty line; that means the study is comprised mostly of the poorest and most oppressed people in some of the most unusually violent cities like Memphis and Cleveland in order to produce a very specific result. Narrowing the data further to ensure a favorable result, it also only ...


So you're statistically safer in a house with a firearm?
 
2013-09-18 06:32:17 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.


BTW: You vote? Because there's roughly a 50% chance you'll vote for a Republican for president next time. Statistically, it's true. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.
 
2013-09-18 06:34:04 PM

Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: I suspect you you have a highly ego-centric worldview if you ignore data in favor of personal anecdotes.

I'm not going with personal anecdotes. But if a lot of people who accidentally shoot others do so drunk, and I don't drink, that scientifically substantially reduces the odds that I will shoot someone I care about if I own a gun. If you're not willing to accept that, well, that's a problem in your thinking.

I also own a pool. Statistics show that my pool is more likely to kill someone than my gun. I bet that's actually not true in my case, because unlike many pools, mine is fenced. I also work from home, and I can see my pool pretty much any time I look up from my computer screen, which means my pool has eyes-on more than most pools.

So I bet that, in my case, my pool is less likely to kill someone than my gun.

That's not personal anecdote, that's stating the variables that can affect outcomes.

And, frankly, I bet if you thought about it, you'd realize that was true.

You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.

If you have alcohol in your house you are statistically more likely to harm a loved one in a drunken rage.

Of course, I have alcohol in my house for guests, I don't drink, and am not married and am without kids.

But you go ahead and keep thinking that my odds are the same as an alcoholic's.


You just doubled risk from 0.001% to 0.002%

You reckless monster.
 
2013-09-18 07:25:14 PM

Gothnet: omeganuepsilon: You conveniently leave out the hoplophobes that don't think any civilian should have a gun. Pretending they don't exist sort of hints at you being less in desire of intelligent gun reform and more along those lines.

Hoplophobes? You mean like most of the rest of the civilised world? Where (weirdly enough) these mass shootings seem to be a lot less frequent?


I mean hoplophobes.  From the wiki:
Hoplophobia is a neologism, originally coined to describe an "irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who may wield them.

But since you brought it up.  You know what is more frequent in most of the rest of the civilized world?  Oppression, diminished rights, slavery and even genocide.  Women shot in the street..., for dancing, people being stoned to death because they did/didn't have sex in wedlock or more simply just saw too much skin, or showed too much.   etc etc etc.

Uranus Is Huge!: You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder.


If you go to the casino you're statistically more likely to win than someone who doesn't go.

You may think you were being clever, but in all actuality you're simply taking a turn at playing Captain Obvious.

Uranus Is Huge!: Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.


False. First, you state the obvious, then you switch to Captain Obtuse. If he's responsible and keeps them safe and secure where no kids or mentally ill people have access, the statistics change. Stupid and reckless people skew that original statistic greatly.  You're guilty of oversimplifying the situation.  Same mistake racists make, thinking all black people are the same.

Not all gun owners have the same factors present in their homes, ergo your oft repeated(on fark) sentiment about how a gun = RiskX is entirely too generalized.

From the wiki:
Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence-essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
 
2013-09-18 07:29:34 PM

Ricardo Klement: Uranus Is Huge!: You really don't understand how statistics or probability work. If you have a gun in your house it is statistically more likely to harm you or a loved one than an intruder. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.

BTW: You vote? Because there's roughly a 50% chance you'll vote for a Republican for president next time. Statistically, it's true. Your personal choices have zero bearing on this.


So, having guns in the house decreases the liklihood of being shot?

That's all I'm asking.
 
2013-09-18 07:32:53 PM

omeganuepsilon: But since you brought it up. You know what is more frequent in most of the rest of the civilized world? Oppression, diminished rights, slavery and even genocide. Women shot in the street..., for dancing, people being stoned to death because they did/didn't have sex in wedlock or more simply just saw too much skin, or showed too much. etc etc etc.



Umm, no actually, those things are not more common in the rest of the civilised world, pretty much by definition, but thanks for playingcalling out a few NRA talking points.
 
Displayed 50 of 522 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report