Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 12/5/2002 5:55:43 PM EST
First off, i'm not [:k]'ing with this article. It's one that to me and you, it's obvious this is just a ridiculous 'study.' States with more households with guns have more murders... states with more cars have more wrecks... anyway. here is the article: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021204/hl_nm/guns_murders_dc_1[/url] I'd like to know how you would address such an article with an anti-gunner. I ask because I know of at least one (the one who pointed this out to me) who just love stuff like this because "it just proves that we need to ban guns."
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:03:02 AM EST
I personally wonder where they got information on gun ownership rates. I saw a "study" similar to this one that used crime rates to estimate gun ownership, and then used those gun ownership values to "prove" that states with more guns have more murders.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:23:56 AM EST
The spin they give such a thing as this is just asinine and plays on peoples ignorance and lust for sensation. It makes me want to puke because the antis somehow see this as 'proof' that gun owndership somehow leads to higher murder rates. I think they want people to believe that law abiding Joe citizen is more murder prone if he has a gun in his home. Ugh. Well anyway, I see this isn't really a discussion point of interest so I'll let it go.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:30:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 4:14:01 AM EST by The_Macallan]
Here's all you need:
"Their risk of dying in a non-gun-related homicide was also nearly double that of those who lived in states with the lowest rates of gun ownership."
View Quote
Huh? QUESTION: Exactly HOW does a gun in the home cause people to be killed with OTHER weapons at a higher rate???? ANSWER: It doesn't. Guns in the home simply indicate that the owner may live in an area where they feel more threatened - so they acquire a gun for protection (if they can).
"It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition," they write."
View Quote
No duh! Basic Research 101: [b]CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.[/B] This study is nothing more than junkscience. Their biased motiviation is obvious:
The study findings imply "that guns, on balance, lethally imperil rather than protect Americans," lead study author Dr. Matthew Miller of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health. "This inference is consistent with previous...studies that have found that the presence of a gun in the home is a risk factor for homicide, and starkly at odds with the unsubstantiated, yet often adduced, notion that guns are a public good," he added."
View Quote
So how come they don't do a correlation between gun ownership and use of guns to STOP crimes??? [b]2,000,000 times a year guns are used for personal protection against rapes, assaults, robbery, burglaries and attempted murders.[/b] States with higher gun-owner rates have GREATER rates of using of guns in self-defense. Where's THAT mentioned in this study. They ASSUME that guns are ONLY used for criminal uses. They backhandedly try to refute the "notion that guns are a public good" with this pile of flawed, half-assed junkscience "study".
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:43:05 AM EST
More junk science.[puke]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:50:09 AM EST
There have already been a couple of critiques of the article. Unfortunately, unlike John Lott who make his papers and data availiable for free, you have to pay for this paper. But here's a hint.... What states would you think have the highest per capita gun ownership? He lists; Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Wyoming, West Virginia and Arkansas. This sample seems suspicious to me. I would guess a state like North Dakota would rank fairly high. I'm sure other factors like avg income, education, etc would be better predictors of homicide rates than per capita gun ownership. Nels
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:59:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 4:10:00 AM EST by Swad]
Junk science or whatever--some feed off this stuff like it was meat and potatoes for the cause of de-arming all. It's an uphill battle to convince them that this is just that--junk science. I suppose it's not something to get to worked up about, though. I would guess stuff like flies around all the time. What can you do to fight it? *shrugs* The_Macallan: Thanks for pointing out some of that... my brain went into fart mode and I got mental block from reading that and then seeing someone define that as "logic... nothing else needs to be said for the removal of gun casue". Subjection to sheeple thought can make my thought process hazy. Oh, and where did you get that 2,000,000 number for warding off crimes. I have seen that number before but would like areference point to have stowed away.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:22:43 AM EST
Here you go [b]Swad[/b]. A dozen studies were compiled here - [url=http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html]FREQUENCY OF DEFENSIVE GUN USE[/url] It's part of the Kleck study, one of the best, most comprehensive studies of firearm self-defense around. Learn it, live it, love it. [;)]
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 4:34:37 AM EST
Good job Macallan!
Top Top