billvon 3,080 #176 October 8, 2009 >The folks that did this study seem (to me at least) to be in the group >that wishes to take that option away from me and everyone else. I didn't get that. From their conclusions: =============== On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dangerous environment, should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered. =============== I don't think the suggestion to "understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures" is indicative of a desire to "take away" anyone's guns. Heck, it sounds like something out of an NRA gun safety class. It sounds pretty commonsense to me, and would tend to benefit, not disarm, gun users. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #177 October 8, 2009 Quote>I'm willing to get shot in that cause. I guess the question is - are you willing to have them shot, and will carrying a gun make that more or less likely? I don't think there have been any studies done on such a topic, but I also don't think the answer is a slam dunk. That's a decision for me to reach personally. Not one for the government to make for me, and then coerce me into abiding by.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #178 October 8, 2009 >That's a decision for me to reach personally. I agree. And studies like this one help people make more informed decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #179 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteCan you find any peer-reviewed articles presenting data showing a correlation between gun purchase/carrying/ownership and a reduction in gun fatalities? They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence? because they're lobbyist. Lott was discredited for unethical behavior - basically cherry picking his data.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #180 October 8, 2009 Quote >That's a decision for me to reach personally. I agree. And studies like this one help people make more informed decisions. I disagree. Examining the end results of 40 with / 49 without firearms in Philadelphia with less than convincing data should not be what people would use to make "informed" decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #181 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence? Because increases or decreases in rates of violence or suicide are totally irrelevant to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? In that case it wouldn't matter what they found, would it? The point was, the gun lobby wanted CDCP muzzled, and succeeded.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #182 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteCan you find any peer-reviewed articles presenting data showing a correlation between gun purchase/carrying/ownership and a reduction in gun fatalities? They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence? because they're lobbyist. Lott was discredited for unethical behavior - basically cherry picking his data. And.... I also question the findings in this study. But... it's easier in American Medicine to discredit those that are against the "popular" beliefs. (not saying Lott did or didn't cherry pick.... but why didn't this study use a 99% CI?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #183 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCan you find any peer-reviewed articles presenting data showing a correlation between gun purchase/carrying/ownership and a reduction in gun fatalities? They are few and far between, but they are out there. Look up Lott and Mustard QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence? because they're lobbyist. Lott was discredited for unethical behavior - basically cherry picking his data. And.... I also question the findings in this study. But... it's easier in American Medicine to discredit those that are against the "popular" beliefs. (not saying Lott did or didn't cherry pick.... but why didn't this study use a 99% CI?) What would you prefer?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #184 October 8, 2009 >Examining the end results of 40 with / 49 without firearms in >Philadelphia with less than convincing data should not be what people >would use to make "informed" decisions. Some people will latch onto this study and ignore studies like the Lott/Mustard study because it goes against their prejudices. Some people will do the exact opposite, and look only for pro-gun studies that reinforce their beliefs. Neither method, IMO, results in being as informed as someone who can look at them without such prejudices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #185 October 8, 2009 Quote>Examining the end results of 40 with / 49 without firearms in >Philadelphia with less than convincing data should not be what people >would use to make "informed" decisions. Some people will latch onto this study and ignore studies like the Lott/Mustard study because it goes against their prejudices. Some people will do the exact opposite, and look only for pro-gun studies that reinforce their beliefs. Neither method, IMO, results in being as informed as someone who can look at them without such prejudices. There are very serious problems with the Lott study: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_R._Lott%2C_Jr.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #186 October 8, 2009 BOTH sides can and DO "fudge" or even make up the numbers. This is a topic that isn't always based on fact. (as evidenced by this thread) People have strong opinions to both sides of the debate. To have a "real" study is unrealistic. You can not have a double blind, placebo controlled randomized study. 1. It would NEVER past any IRB. 2. "Blind"?! I would hope not (humor....) But people will still have his/her bias. That will influence what you say, what you read, and even how you think (not that would be an interesting study.... MRI of pro and anti beliefs while reading studies of the topic) Anyway.... I just wanted to spar over the "facts" and counter someone that posted a thread about a less than proven statement. (where is J. anyway) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #187 October 8, 2009 Quote In that case it wouldn't matter what they found, would it? Correct. The 2nd amendment has been confirmed by SCOTUS.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #188 October 8, 2009 >Correct. The 2nd amendment has been confirmed by SCOTUS. So why would the gun lobby be trying to shut down research that's irrelevant? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #189 October 8, 2009 Quote Seem to me that EVERY person in this thread who criticizes the article has (a) a strong pro-gun bias, and (b) with the exception of Dr. Bordson, no expertise in statistical analysis. Yes, because sadly, those who are supporters of gun control have no problem with lies or propaganda that supports their viewpoint, so we can't expect them to criticize the article as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #190 October 8, 2009 Quote Can you find any peer-reviewed articles presenting data showing a correlation between gun purchase/carrying/ownership and a reduction in gun fatalities? Millions of guns are sold every year. The fatality rate remains unchanged. If you want to measure on a deaths/guns in circulation, the trendline is downward sloping. Yes, suicidal people who buy guns often then use the guns to kill themselves. Startling observation, along there with 'the sun is bright.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #191 October 8, 2009 Quote QuoteCan you explain why the gun lobby worked so hard to prevent the CDCP from continuing its analysis of gun violence? because they're lobbyist. Both of them, in fact. The CDC attempt to sell gun violence as a disease that they should be involved with is politically motivated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #192 October 8, 2009 >Yes, because sadly, those who are supporters of gun control have >no problem with lies or propaganda that supports their viewpoint, so we >can't expect them to criticize the article as well. Sadly that's true in both directions. Look at the pro-gun's vehement defense of flawed studies showing something they prefer to believe. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #193 October 8, 2009 Quote Sadly that's true in both directions. Look at the pro-gun's vehement defense of flawed studies showing something they prefer to believe. It's starting to sound like they're all flawed. Which numbers do we believe?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #194 October 8, 2009 Quote>Yes, because sadly, those who are supporters of gun control have >no problem with lies or propaganda that supports their viewpoint, so we >can't expect them to criticize the article as well. Sadly that's true in both directions. Look at the pro-gun's vehement defense of flawed studies showing something they prefer to believe. Agreed. And that is why we should look at any study regarding gun violence with extreme skepticism.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #195 October 8, 2009 >It's starting to sound like they're all flawed. The problem with this particular study is not that it's flawed; the conclusions it comes to are supportable. It's that people are misinterpreting them. The anti-gunners are hearing "this study proves a gun will get you killed!" The pro-gunners are hearing what THEY are saying, and saying "no, the study is flawed - it didn't even look outside assaults! It's totally erroneous." Both groups are wrong. The study doesn't say anything like that. It's a very narrow study with a very specific conclusion, and doesn't really support conclusions outside its scope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #196 October 8, 2009 QuoteQuote Sadly that's true in both directions. Look at the pro-gun's vehement defense of flawed studies showing something they prefer to believe. It's starting to sound like they're all flawed. Which numbers do we believe? Firearms ARE dangerous. This study made some interesting commentary on how a gun might "empower" someone and with that it might place him/her in danger. LIFE is dangerous. (You jump out of planes from 13k!!) As far as what to "believe"? Have a level of distrust for anything that is told to you. Numbers can and do lie. BUT... learn how to sift through some of that. Statistics are BORING (if taught wrong)... but it's a very helpful tool in understanding. Don't seek to "believe".... try to "understand" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #197 October 8, 2009 QuoteThe study doesn't say anything like that. It's a very narrow study with a very specific conclusion, and doesn't really support conclusions outside its scope. Can you remind me what the conclusion was again?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #198 October 8, 2009 >This study made some interesting commentary on how a gun might >"empower" someone and with that it might place him/her in danger. Agreed - and we have two examples right here in this thread of people who seem to feel that way. That's only anecdotal data, of course, but is interesting when considering the study's conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #199 October 8, 2009 >Can you remind me what the conclusion was again? Summary: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault." Longer conclusion: "After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #200 October 8, 2009 Quote>Can you remind me what the conclusion was again? Summary: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault." Longer conclusion: "After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault." Thank you.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
