Support NeoGAF

[appaws]

Your arguments indicate that you have no understanding of epidemiology. Not sure how observations can be considered outliers when the sampling is literally "all comers" for the entire year. You may be using the term "outlier" incorrectly. I'm not sure how you can accuse multiple, independent, groups of professional statisticians of fraud when you yourself do not understand the basics to point out these alleged mistakes.

The study where Fig. 1 comes from in my previous post, did indeed separate out suicides and still found a statistically significant association. But you didn't pick up on that. Regarding prior criminal convictions, I'm not sure how that is associated with increased rates of accidental gunshot injuries, for example, of which I've argued that the rate is far higher than rates for defensive use. Accidental gunshot injuries remain a public health issue as well. You have no evidence to suggest that rates of defensive incidents are higher than rates of accidental shootings. I have presented evidence that suggests better gun control is associated with fewer deaths from gunshots, as well as fewer deaths from suicide overall. You have presented nothing to counter that.

I'm sure researchers would be happy to separately study gunowners who don't commit suicide and do not have a previous criminal conviction. But that would require mandatory background checks for every gun sale, as well as allowing tracking of every gunowner in a searchable database that links gunowners with criminal history. You know, a gunowner database. The term you're looking for is, "cohort study." Too bad gunowners appear to be shy in volunteering that information, since, you know, we need informed consent to perform such a study.

I'm still waiting for you to present your peer-reviewed evidence to back up your biases. Specifically, back up your statement "The vast majority of people, who are mentally stable and not participants in crime, are safer as gun owners than not." The burden of proof is on you to find that evidence, based on the strengths and quantity of research published thus far. Except I expect that you only have anecdotes to back up your claims.

I'm not trying to make a fine and detailed case, only a broad one. I never once mentioned accidental shootings at all, so I am not sure what you are responding to with that stuff. I am a radical anti-statist and not a statistician.

It is constantly trotted out that "people with a gun in the home are actually less safe than gun owners." Then that is backed up with the same biased studies over and over that include suicides and gang members in the stats. What you are doing is making a case that the cook at Fort Campbell is unsafe from the casualty rates of the troops in the Normandy landing...and then saying "the cook at Fort Campbell is less safe because he joined the army, look at those Army casualty rates!"

It is just not possible to extract from the overall rates you cite so readily to any particular individual. Sampling "all comers" is exactly the problem.

I know I come in all these anti-individual rights and "let's make fun of the middle-American hayseeds" threads and ruin them with my pesky insistence that individuals can be trusted to make decisions for themselves instead of our benevolent overlords.

 

[Monocle]

It is. It's important for children to learn gun safety, and to not fetishize them.

It's like how alcohol laws have led to binge drinking in the US.. Making it illegal glamorizes it, taking an every day part of adult life and makes it forbidden and magical to children, causing them to abuse it.

I see what you're saying. It's stories like this and things like the following that concern me.

It's the practice of dressing up deadly weapons to appeal to children. It's letting kids have semi-autos of their own.

Some or all of these photos might have been planned for shock value, but let's not fool ourselves. Gun culture is rampant in the US, and a lot of people—a lot of parents—have absolutely no sense. They promote gun fetishization by example.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Then i think it's clear that Iowa Bill needs to be kept as far away from the reins of power as possible, whoever he is.

*dusts palms*

 

[hockeypuck]

I'm not trying to make a fine and detailed case, only a broad one. I never once mentioned accidental shootings at all, so I am not sure what you are responding to with that stuff.

Accidental shootings should now be tossed out when talking about being safe with versus without a gun? You said, "safer". I would classify being accidentally shot, "not being safe."

It is constantly trotted out that "people with a gun in the home are actually less safe than gun owners." Then that is backed up with the same biased studies over and over that include suicides and gang members in the stats. What you are doing is making a case that the cook at Fort Campbell is unsafe from the casualty rates of the troops in the Normandy landing...and then saying "the cook at Fort Campbell is less safe because he joined the army, look at those Army casualty rates!"

It is just not possible to extract from the overall rates you cite so readily to any particular individual. Sampling "all comers" is exactly the problem.

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about society. Populations. Public policy. You made a statement generalizing to a population. When did "any particular individual" start coming into play. Moreover, let's play your game, with your cherry-picking of statistical terms using your own definitions. What exactly are the traits of these "outliers" you speak of? Traits of what? Please elaborate on these traits. Serious question.

I am a radical anti-statist and not a statistician.

They why are you trying to make statements generalizable to the population? Only talk about yourself. You feel safer with a gun than without.

 

[Bleepey]

Please show me the evidence that this is true in America. Because what I found was the opposite. States with more gun control had lower overall suicide rates, for both men and women. The conclusions the authors wrote were telling-- "Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate. Findings do not support a hypothesis that greater firearm restrictions are associated with the substitution of alternative methods of suicide."
So again, I ask you, please show me the empirical evidence that suggests restricting gun access does diddily squat to the overall suicide rate.


Accidental gun shootings also leave out the many cases which are treated by the ER but not reported to authorities. Emergency room doctors are under no obligation to report accidental gun shootings to anyone outside the hospital. This is evident when there are ~26,000 ER visits annually for accidental gun shootings and yet only ~2,000 get reported.

Regarding defensive uses of guns, you're welcome to look at the methodology to this reporting website based on public sources and know that they do count wounding and yet, reported accidental shootings still outnumber those defensive incidents. How sad is that? What about the "tremendous number of cases where brandishing a gun...prevents a crime"? How do you know it's a tremendous number? Do you have an actual empirical source for that? Or are you pulling that quantity out of your ass? Because I can counter with an out-of-my-ass number of my own and argue that there are "tremendous number of cases where non-defensive brandishing a gun" is used to threaten someone, that also go unreported.


You have no empirical evidence to suggest that. All you have are anecdotes. You can only apply that statement to yourself, not to society.
And yet you blissfully ignore epidemiological evidence after evidence (Fig. 1) that associates firearm ownership with firearm-related death.

Spoiler

You can argue until you're blue in the face that "association" is not "causation" all you want. As if anyone could design a randomized-controlled trial to answer that question. You'd make a tobacco lawyer proud.

Fig. 1 (abstract if link above is broken)

Do you also have a degree in epidemiology?

 

[appaws]

I see what you're saying. It's stories like this and things like the following that concern me.



It's the practice of dressing up deadly weapons to appeal to children. It's letting kids have semi-autos of their own.

Some or all of these photos might have been planned for shock value, but let's not fool ourselves. Gun culture is rampant in the US, and a lot of people—a lot of parents—have absolutely no sense. They promote gun fetishization by example.

I'm as pro-gun as a person can be, but I must say that of those three pictures, only the middle one shows someone with a firearm that is age appropriate, IMO. They need to learn on something that is age appropriate, like a .22 Cricket or something similar. My kid will get one for their 5th birthday.

Accidental shootings should now be tossed out when talking about being safe with versus without a gun? You said, "safer". I would classify being accidentally shot, "not being safe."

I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I said suicides and shootings of gang members skew the "studies" to show that everybody, including non-suicides and non-gang members, are less safe as gun owners.

I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about society. Populations. Public policy. You made a statement generalizing to a population. When did "any particular individual" start coming into play. Moreover, let's play your game, with your cherry-picking of statistical terms using your own definitions. What exactly are the traits of these "outliers" you speak of? Traits of what? Please elaborate on these traits. Serious question.

A mentally stable individual with a proper moral revulsion to the idea of suicide who does not participate in crime....you seem to think that a broad-based advocacy study that includes suicides and criminals "proves" that person is less safe because they own a gun. It's junk propaganda dredged up by a statist movement that has failed time and again to convince Americans to give up their liberty.

The words "public policy" make my stomach turn. Partly because in law school those were always the code words for "here comes an argument with no basis in the text of the law." The words public policy mean that here comes some apparatchik or "expert" who thinks he can run your life better than you.

 

[_Ryo_]

Sigh.

And the worse thing get.
The dumber we become.
And the worse things get.

I swear that this is so fucking stupid that in this very moment I literally have no other words than those I've just typed.

 

[GaimeGuy]

My kid will get one for their 5th birthday.

Why does your 5 year old need a fucking gun?

 

[MMaRsu]

Why does your 5 year old need a fucking gun?

For pretection obviously

*pukes*

 

[Jonm1010]

I'm as pro-gun as a person can be, but I must say that of those three pictures, only the middle one shows someone with a firearm that is age appropriate, IMO. They need to learn on something that is age appropriate, like a .22 Cricket or something similar. My kid will get one for their 5th birthday.



I never said that, don't put words in my mouth. I said suicides and shootings of gang members skew the "studies" to show that everybody, including non-suicides and non-gang members, are less safe as gun owners.




A mentally stable individual with a proper moral revulsion to the idea of suicide who does not participate in crime....you seem to think that a broad-based advocacy study that includes suicides and criminals "proves" that person is less safe because they own a gun. It's junk propaganda dredged up by a statist movement that has failed time and again to convince Americans to give up their liberty.

The words "public policy" make my stomach turn. Partly because in law school those were always the code words for "here comes an argument with no basis in the text of the law." The words public policy mean that here comes some apparatchik or "expert" who thinks he can run your life better than you.

Man do you ever not make shit up and talk out your ass? Seriously? How many threads has it been where you get completely owned time and again only to show back up with the same awful, poorly thought out arguments? You would think someone so hell bent on defending shit gun laws would at least spend some fucking time memorizing some bs studies instead of making appeals to shit they pull from their ass.

Maybe even retake that philosophy 101 class you obviously failed given your completely laughable attempts at rhetoric and syllogism.

 

[appaws]

Man do you ever not make shit up and talk out your ass? Seriously? How many threads has it been where you get completely owned time and again only to show back up with the same awful, poorly thought out arguments? You would think someone so hell bent on defending shit gun laws would at least spend some fucking time memorizing some bs studies instead of making appeals to shit they pull from their ass.

Maybe even retake that philosophy 101 class you obviously failed given your completely laughable attempts at rhetoric and syllogism.

Those who want to roll back individual liberty get so mad when challenged. I note in these gun control threads that it is always the anti-gun people who turn to ad hominem attacks.

I wonder why? I guess it is tough to expend so much energy parroting the same lies over and over and make no "progress" in their mission to control the lives of the poor bitter clingers in flyover country.