User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 12:27:25 PM EDT
[#1]
Interesting. I'm too tired to thoroughly read that now, but I'll try to do so later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 12:32:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion......
The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 12:35:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Homicydes eh? Why not Homycides?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 12:38:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion...... The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. Duh |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 12:40:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Duh Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion...... The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. Duh Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:10:13 PM EDT
[#6]
The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:17:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion...... The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. Duh Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario. "ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures. stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective. don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:19:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures. stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective. don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lengthy read, so TL; DR'd my way to the conclusion...... The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. Duh Of course it ignores the *MURDER* rate, which has a slightly different curve, mostly only different in the "no legal guns" scenario. "ignore" is a strong word, and inappropriate given the nature of the paper. murder is a purely legal term that speaks directly to intent of homicide, and is not scientifically determinable--it makes sense for a CJ analysis, but not for the epidemiological analysis that the paper very clearly lays out. but you'll note that the authors were quite specific about separating aggressive vice defensive postures. stop trying to "figure out" where the authors are going--just read the paper scientifically. if you do, you'll note that the authors are not telling you anything about what is actually the state of affairs. this paper doesn't even go into that. they are proposing a way to mathematically model a scientific question: are gun restrictions more likely to save innocent lives or take them? this an explicitly-stated preliminary work, which says "these are the variables that are not currently researched, but need to be researched, if we want to determine the answer to that question" from an epidemiological perspective. don't have time to delve into the model procedures, but on its face, the paper looks solid. I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:20:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The model suggests that the rate of firearm-induced homicides can be minimized either by a ban of private firearm possession, or by the legal availability of guns for everyone, depending on the parameter values. that's the thing about math. they didn't calculate the outcome of first banning guns and then being killed by the free men whose guns they tried to ban. At least it wasn't the "study" that defined "high gun crime" as a percentage of that state's total violent crime completely irrespective of how high or low that state's crime rate was. You know, the one that ranked Alaska as "worst gun crime in the nation"? Gotta watch these clowns. *not lumping in real researchers with activist clowns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:23:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... I don't disagree at all, I'm just sick of the concept of the "handgun homicide rate", which is a statistic invented to defend gun control well, from an epidemiological perspective, handguns are just another cause-of-death worthy of study. i can't fault them for researching it, as long as they are transparent with their research. although there's no question that many such studies are not transparent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 1:44:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Here's a clarification on how to read that figure:
h = probability that someone illegally obtains a firearm when it is not allowed (e.g. felon with a gun, ranges from 0 to 1, 1 being felons always have guns) c = fraction of people who take up their legal right of gun ownership and have the firearm in possession when attacked (ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 meaning the person always has a gun when attacked) g = gun control policy, 0 being no one is allowed to legally have a gun, 1 is everyone is able to possess. Beta 1 = probability for an unarmed person to die in an attack Beta 2 = probability for an armed person to die in an attack Beta 2 / Beta 1 = 1 means that the armed person always dies in an attack (e.g. having a gun makes no difference) Beta 2 / beta 1 = 0 means that the unarmed person always dies in an attack (e.g. having a gun offers the greatest protection) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 2:06:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Tl; DR and probably beyond my math skills.
I see it's edited in Australia, funded by UC Irvine. Fuck em. Take their math skills and walk down one of our democrat cities at midnight with Iphones in plain view. Then they can calculate their odds of being alive at midnight + 10 minutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 2:27:43 PM EDT
[#13]
So teh report says this:
Limited data available in the literature were used to demonstrate how the model can be parameterized, and this preliminary analysis suggests that a ban of private firearm possession, or possibly a partial reduction in gun availability, might lower the rate of firearm-induced homicides. This, however, should not be seen as a policy recommendation, due to the limited data available to inform and parameterize the model. However, the model clearly defines what needs to be measured, and provides a basis for a scientific discussion about assumptions and data. A politican will take the report and say this. Recently there was a report done that said, Limited data available in the literature were used to demonstrate how the model can be parameterized, and this preliminary analysis suggests that a ban of private firearm possession, or possibly a partial reduction in gun availability, might lower the rate of firearm-induced homicides. This, however, should not be seen as a policy recommendation, due to the limited data available to inform and parameterize the model. However, the model clearly defines what needs to be measured, and provides a basis for a scientific discussion about assumptions and data. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 2:30:29 PM EDT
[#14]
Is there any consideration of the criminality of people killed by guns immediately prior to their demise, or does this study include Christopher Dorner and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as "victims of gun violence"?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2013 2:41:51 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there any consideration of the criminality of people killed by guns immediately prior to their demise, or does this study include Christopher Dorner and Tamerlan Tsarnaev as "victims of gun violence"? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Probably, but the "Handgun Murder Rate" should exclude them, because IIRC the police used rifles.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
