narkive is for sale. Interested? (dismiss)
Discussion:
"Good Guy with a Gun" soundly debunked.
(too old to reply)
!Jones
2020-07-26 20:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Full Article:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20

“Contrary to the common ‘good guy with a gun’ argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws,” according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal.

In fact, states that have passed permissive concealed carry
legislation experience higher rates of gun homicides than states
without such laws, writes Emma E. Fridel, an assistant professor in
the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State
University.

In her study, which examines the effects of household gun ownership
and concealed carry legislation on the rates of mass shootings and
firearm homicides in all 50 states between 1991 and 2016, Fridel found
that a disproportionate number of mass shootings occur in states with
higher levels of gun ownership.

Nevertheless, mass shootings — incidents in which four or more
individuals are killed by a firearm within 24 hours — occur
approximately 23 times per year on average and “account for less than
1 percent of all homicides in the United States.”

For this reason, Fridel argued that lawmakers on both sides of the gun
debate wrongly “assume that mass shootings are representative of
firearms homicide more generally, and therefore that strategies to
prevent mass shootings will also reduce gun violence overall.”

As part of her methodology, Fridel used data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Web-based Inquiry Statistics
Query and Reporting System.

Fridel also created a unique dataset of 592 mass shootings in the U.S.
from 1991 to 2016 by collecting gun violence data from a number of
sources, including the Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence
Archive, Everytown for Gun Safety, and LexisNexis.

Previous research has both supported and refuted Fridel’s argument
that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will not deter
tragedies like the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Parkland, Fl., which left 17 dead; and the 2016 shooting at
the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fl., which left 49 dead and 53
wounded.

The Violence Policy Center (VPC), a group that advocates for stricter
gun policies, reported that between 2007 and 2019, concealed handgun
permit holders were responsible for at least 1,335 deaths not
involving self-defense.

“Concealed carry permit holders are supposed to be the ‘good guys’
with guns,” said VPC in a statement. “In reality, far too many permit
holders are a direct threat to public safety.”

However, a recent RAND survey found that laws allowing the concealed
carry of firearms would reduce murder rates. And, according to a 2013
report by the CDC, firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000
and 3,000,000 times per year.

“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” the CDC concluded.

Contrary to the CDC, Fridel found that at the state level, more
relaxed concealed carry laws were associated with a 10.8 percent
increase in the rate of firearm-involved homicides.

Additionally, higher rates of household gun ownership correlated with
a striking 53.5 percent increase in the rate of mass shootings,
according to the report.

In fact, the study said, “gun ownership was the only significant
macro-level predictor of mass shootings.”
That is, “other factors often cited in the wake of mass shootings,
such as access to mental healthcare, do not significantly influence
the rate of these crimes,” the author added.

The author also found that when concealed carry laws were taken into
account, gun ownership had a nominal effect on rates of
firearm-involved homicides.

Reflecting on these results, the author wrote that “gun ownership and
legislation do not impact mass shootings and firearm homicides in the
same way.”

“The results of the current study, for example, indicate that reducing
gun ownership…benefits mass shooting prevention efforts, while
reinstating more restrictive concealed carry legislation decreases the
overall firearms homicide rate,” Fridel wrote.

Interestingly, the author deducted, “neither intervention appears to
have a deleterious effect on the other crime (e.g., higher levels of
gun ownership do not reduce the firearms homicide rate, and more
permissive concealed carry legislation is not associated with a
reduction in mass shootings).”

Therefore, rather than “focusing on the rare mass shooting, however
tragic such incidents may be,” policymakers should “enact distinct
prevention initiatives in order to address different types of gun
violence,” Friedel wrote.

She added: “Considering that other policies not considered here may
prevent one type of gun violence while promoting another, it is
imperative that legislators recognize the distinct correlates of mass
shootings and firearms homicide and consider potential collateral
consequences before enacting an intervention.”
max headroom
2020-07-26 21:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
!Jones
2020-07-27 03:37:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
max headroom
2020-07-27 05:02:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
!Jones
2020-07-27 14:14:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:02:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.

The researcher says that mass shootings, with all of their media
attention, pale beside the number of family shootings. As Kellermann
showed so many years ago in what remains the most widely cited gun
study: bringing a gun into a home increases the probability that a
family member will die by gunfire... probably from the gun they own.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 14:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill.
Psychological projection
Description
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the human ego
defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying
their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For
example, a bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto
the target.
max headroom
2020-07-27 15:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.
I am correct: you are deluded.
Post by !Jones
The researcher says that mass shootings, with all of their media
attention, pale beside the number of family shootings. As Kellermann
showed so many years ago in what remains the most widely cited gun
study: bringing a gun into a home increases the probability that a
family member will die by gunfire... probably from the gun they own.
Kellermann's "study" draws no such conclusion. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used
in the homicides belonged.
!Jones
2020-07-27 18:40:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:07:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.
I am correct: you are deluded.
Post by !Jones
The researcher says that mass shootings, with all of their media
attention, pale beside the number of family shootings. As Kellermann
showed so many years ago in what remains the most widely cited gun
study: bringing a gun into a home increases the probability that a
family member will die by gunfire... probably from the gun they own.
Kellermann's "study" draws no such conclusion. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used
in the homicides belonged.
Moron. Obviously, you haven't read *Gun ownership as a risk factor
for homicide in the home*. It's right there in his fucking title if
you'd bother to read it.
max headroom
2020-07-27 18:47:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:02:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.
I am correct: you are deluded.
The researcher says that mass shootings, with all of their media
attention, pale beside the number of family shootings. As Kellermann
showed so many years ago in what remains the most widely cited gun
study: bringing a gun into a home increases the probability that a
family member will die by gunfire... probably from the gun they own.
Kellermann's "study" draws no such conclusion. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns
used in the homicides belonged.
Moron. Obviously, you haven't read *Gun ownership as a risk factor
for homicide in the home*. It's right there in his fucking title if
you'd bother to read it.
Moron. I *have* read it, and I repeat: Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the
homicides belonged.
!Jones
2020-07-28 03:52:37 UTC
Permalink
Please read the title.
Just Wondering
2020-07-28 04:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Do you mean the Subject? It's a work of fiction.
!Jones
2020-07-28 13:53:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:24:41 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Do you mean the Subject? It's a work of fiction.
Kellermann, et.al.? Poof! It's the most widely cited gun study there
ever has been. It was published in the NEJM... twice, actually,
originally and with revisions. Look it up in the citation index...
over 1,000 peer reviewed citations. (By comparison, if I receive
*one*, my colleagues can't stand me thumping my chest.)

OP was arguing that the authors "never asked" who actually owned the
gun; however, the data were taken from emergency room medical records.
I would guess that, if the gun were in the house, it really doesn't
matter who the technical *owner* is. The e-room records likely
wouldn't have that detail.
slate_leeper
2020-07-29 12:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Kellermann, et.al.? Poof! It's the most widely cited gun study there
ever has been.
And the most thoroughly discredited:

You might be interested in knowing that even Kellermann doesn't
believe it: Dr. Arthur Kellermann, the author of the very well
debunked 43-to-1 and 2.7-to-1 statistics, in his own words stated: "If
you've got to resist, your chances of being hurt are less the more
lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a
.38 Special in her hand? Yeah." (Health Magazine, March/April 1994)



Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH is a professor of emergency medicine
at
Emory University and the Director of the Center for Injury Control at
the Rollins School of Public Health in Atlanta Georgia. He is board
certified in emergency medicine. (Kellermann home page;
www.sph.emory.edu/CIC/Kellerman.html) As a practicing physician and
professor of medicine, Dr. Kellermann would have access to a large
amount of data not available to the general public. This should give
him a broader population to work with than he did. Which makes one
ask,
why didn't he?

In the Kellermann study, the sample population was limited. He
focused
on three counties, one from each of three states, Washington,
Tennessee
and Ohio. He chose the most densely populated counties in those
states,
King, Shelby and Cuyahoga, respectively. Dr. Kellermann also limited
the time frame that he used to gather his data. For King and Shelby
counties, he used the time period from August 23, 1987 to August 23,
1992 and for Cuyahoga county the time frame was from January 1, 1990
to
August 23, 1992. (Kellerman et.al., New England Journal of Medicine;
vol.329 no.15, 1993, pg.1084).

Kellermann also used a control case study, limiting his cases to
the
following criteria; "Any death ruled a homicide was included,
regardless
of the method used. Assault related injuries that were not
immediately
fatal were included if death followed within three months." ( NEMJ
vol.329, no.15, pg. 1084). Right there, that raised a red flag in
my
mind. If the case studies included deaths occurring three months
after
an assault, one has to question the validity of those cases. The
questions that come to mind were; what were the cause of death for
those
who were assaulted? Were the deaths related to the initial assault or
were they from other causes? These question were never answered in
this
article or any other that Dr. Kellermann published in the New England
Journal of Medicine or other medical journals that he has written for.

The next major question was; if his hypothesis was that guns
ownership
is the major risk factor for homicide, why include homicides that were
not committed with a firearm? Wouldn't that create a statistical
problem? In his articles there was no explanation for why he used all
homicides. There was no mention of a percentage comparison or other
types of statistical explanations for these uses.

The Kellermann study also used a control case study for their data
collection. This again limited the data available to them. In the
article; Gun Ownership and Homicide in the Home., Kellermann and his
fellow authors go into a detailed explanation of their limiting of the
data sets. (NEMJ, vol.329, no.25, pg. 1085). By the time they
finished
limiting their cases, nearly one half of the homicides being studied
had
been eliminated. The other factor that limits their data sets is the
"matched" control cases they used in the study. This cut their data
set
even further. By the time they began running their statistical
analysis, they had brought the cases in the sample population from
nearly 1100 cases of homicide to matched cases totaling 420 for the
three counties.(Kellermann et.al. NEMJ, vol.329, no.15, pg. 1086).
This
severely limits the accuracy of these statistics when applied to the
general population. For statitisticians, this problem is classed as
an
ecological fallacy. The problem of taking limited individual data and
expanding it to explain overall trends in the general population. The
further a data set is limited, the greater this problem becomes. It is
easy for a researcher to fall prey to this and those in serious
statistical research seek to avoid it by using the largest sample
population possible as well as weighting the sample when expanding it
to
a general population. In doing so, they allow for the actual variance
in demographics within any given population. Nowhere in the research
I
looked at in the Kellermann study did I find any mention of this
process
when they drew their final conclusions.

In this study there was a brief mention of alcohol and substance
abuse by the individuals involved in the homicide cases studied.
However, I could find no statistical analysis using these as control
or
independent variables. There is no indication as to whether these
factors were antecedent or intervening. They also brought out that in
the control cases, these two factors were not as common. (NEMJ
vol.329,
no.15, pg.1086) If as they claim, their control cases were carefully
matched to the proxy cases for the homicide victims, wouldn't this be
a
factor that would be taken into account? In numerous other
criminological studies, both of these are known to be contributing
factors in the cases of violent crime. Personally, I would find this
to
be important enough to run at least a single regression to control for
these factors and determine whether or not they were intervening.

Another factor that they mention in the study is the frequency of
a
previous history of violence in the household where the homicide
occurred. (NEMJ vol.329, no.15, pg.1086). Again this was another
factor
that I could find no statistical control for. It is interesting that
there are more factors than the ownership of firearms that could
possibly contribute to a violent confrontation that ended in a
homicide. It would lead a person to believe that there are other
precipitating factors that lead up to violence.

Kellermann and his group did not use any multivariate analyses to
explain these intervening or independent variables in their study.
Instead they used univariate analysis and a single chi square
test.(NEMJ, vol. 329, no.15, pg. 1087). As a student of statistics, I
have learned that these are both valid methods for interpreting data
that is gathered but only as a starting point. It gives the researcher
a
means of determining if there is any statistical significance between
the variables being tested. If there is, then further statistical
analyses are needed to determine the level of significance and if
there
truly is a correlation between the variables. One of the first thing
a
researcher tests for is spuriousness. Are the variables truly related
or is there an intervening variable that is acting on both that could
reasonably explain the initial correlation?

In the Kellermann study, they only mention these variables in
passing
in the following statement; "Our data indicate that keeping a gun in
the
home is independently associated with an increase in the risk of
homicide in the home. The use of illicit drugs and a history of
physical fights in the home are also important risk factors." (NEMJ,
vol.329 no.15, pg.1087). Nowhere else in this article or others
relating to this study is there any mention of the effect of these
factors.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-30 02:22:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:26:29 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
That isn't what the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine
think. That isn't what the editors of the Journal of the American
Medical Association think. That isn't what over a thousand scholarly,
peer-reviewed citations think.

Anybody who speaks *will* be criticized; it goes with the turf.
Whether something is "discredited" or not usually depends upon whether
or not it agrees with the speaker's political/philosophical biases.

Has John Lott been "discredited"? It all depends on your politics.
Tell me how you will vote and I'll tell you where you'll stand on that
question... I doubt you have read either of them.
slate_leeper
2020-07-30 12:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:26:29 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
That isn't what the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine
think. That isn't what the editors of the Journal of the American
Medical Association think.
Your references prove my point. They are all seriously biased against
firearms ownership.
Post by !Jones
That isn't what over a thousand scholarly,
peer-reviewed citations think.
I guess you must be referring to Twitter....
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-31 20:30:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:20:47 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Your references prove my point. They are all seriously biased against
firearms ownership.
Well, yeah... as is anyone with any common sense. I'd say the medical
community is "biased against firearms" in the same way and for many of
the same reasons that they're biased against covid-19.

We do understand the old cliché that "guns don't kill people"; people
kill people... etc. The point being that people who habitually have
guns are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.

So, yes, we're unapologetically "biased against firearms".

Did you have anything else?
Just Wondering
2020-07-31 20:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
... people who habitually have guns
What does that even mean? Is it like people who habitually
have clothes, or housing, or food?
Post by !Jones
are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
!Jones
2020-07-31 23:23:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:50:04 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
... people who habitually have guns
What does that even mean? Is it like people who habitually
have clothes, or housing, or food?
Post by !Jones
are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course. The US has the
greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.

Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
max headroom
2020-08-01 05:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
... people who habitually have guns
What does that even mean? Is it like people who habitually
have clothes, or housing, or food?
Post by !Jones
are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course....
Of course not. In the real world outside of academia, we find it helpful to deal in FACTS, as it
enhances our credibility. As you choose to deal in bullshit, you have no credibility.
... The US has the greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Not even close.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
I'm sure all the LEOs around the country might dispute that.
!Jones
2020-08-01 13:10:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:41:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course....
Of course not. In the real world outside of academia, we find it helpful to deal in FACTS, as it
enhances our credibility. As you choose to deal in bullshit, you have no credibility.
... The US has the greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Not even close.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
I'm sure all the LEOs around the country might dispute that.
Oh, we iterate through all of the predictable web sites and "studies".
One sees the same old pages of "facts" cycling by daily. Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts"; I don't know how you
do so with a straight face... by that, I mean that you really can't
compare the US to El Salvador.

There's an old saying: "20% of the people commit 80% of the crimes";
we don't know why that's so, but it is. Of the something like 200
countries in the world, the delta from the tenth lowest to the
eleventh lowest is quite small. OTOH, there's a *big* jump from the
199th to the 200th; i.e.: the data are skewed to the high end.

The valid lens through which to view your *facts* is to filter the
population to isolate what I call "the world"; by that, I mean
comparable countries. The best integral ranking number we have is the
United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI). If you arbitrarily
take nations at or above a 0.9 in the HDI, you will have a manageable
group of about 30 similar countries for comparison in which the US is
about the middle. Thus, when I said: "The US has the greatest [gun]
violence rate in the world", I meant within a population of socially
comparable societies.

I'm sure you have seen the grotesquely skewed graphs showing the US
off the chart; the gun lobby accuses us of "cherry picking" because we
restrict the comparison to high SES countries. I suggest that it's
not logical to compare the US to El Salvador.

But it really doesn't *matter* what I say; it doesn't matter what you
say, either. Neither of us will even listen to the other, so there we
are.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-01 13:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts";
But you whine like a school girl when anyone asks you to support YOUR
made-up statements with facts.

Funny, that.
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Jones, lying, again
max headroom
2020-08-01 16:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course....
Of course not. In the real world outside of academia, we find it helpful to deal in FACTS, as it
enhances our credibility. As you choose to deal in bullshit, you have no credibility.
... The US has the greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Not even close.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
I'm sure all the LEOs around the country might dispute that.
Oh, we iterate through all of the predictable web sites and "studies".
One sees the same old pages of "facts" cycling by daily. Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts"; I don't know how you
do so with a straight face... by that, I mean that you really can't
compare the US to El Salvador.
I didn't-- worldpopulationreview.com did it already.
Post by !Jones
There's an old saying: "20% of the people commit 80% of the crimes";
we don't know why that's so, but it is....
80% of the people are honest. This ain't rocket science, teacher.
Post by !Jones
... Of the something like 200 countries in the world, the delta from the tenth lowest to the
eleventh lowest is quite small. OTOH, there's a *big* jump from the
199th to the 200th; i.e.: the data are skewed to the high end.
The valid lens through which to view your *facts* is to filter the
population to isolate what I call "the world"; by that, I mean
comparable countries....
The goal post is moving... let the cherry-picking commence!
!Jones
2020-08-01 21:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 09:18:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Oh, we iterate through all of the predictable web sites and "studies".
One sees the same old pages of "facts" cycling by daily. Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts"; I don't know how you
do so with a straight face... by that, I mean that you really can't
compare the US to El Salvador.
I didn't-- worldpopulationreview.com did it already.
Obviously, one *can* say any damn thing.
max headroom
2020-08-01 21:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Oh, we iterate through all of the predictable web sites and "studies".
One sees the same old pages of "facts" cycling by daily. Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts"; I don't know how you
do so with a straight face... by that, I mean that you really can't
compare the US to El Salvador.
I didn't-- worldpopulationreview.com did it already.
Obviously, one *can* say any damn thing.
And, if one is like Jones, one can say anything, facts be damned!
!Jones
2020-08-02 02:38:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:37:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
And, if one is like Jones, one can say anything, facts be damned!
Whatever.
Just Wondering
2020-08-01 21:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:41:29 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course....
Of course not. In the real world outside of academia, we find it helpful to deal in FACTS, as it
enhances our credibility. As you choose to deal in bullshit, you have no credibility.
... The US has the greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Not even close.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
I'm sure all the LEOs around the country might dispute that.
Oh, we iterate through all of the predictable web sites and "studies".
One sees the same old pages of "facts" cycling by daily. Just about
*anything* you say, I can support with "facts"; I don't know how you
do so with a straight face... by that, I mean that you really can't
compare the US to El Salvador.
There's an old saying: "20% of the people commit 80% of the crimes";
we don't know why that's so, but it is. Of the something like 200
countries in the world, the delta from the tenth lowest to the
eleventh lowest is quite small. OTOH, there's a *big* jump from the
199th to the 200th; i.e.: the data are skewed to the high end.
The valid lens through which to view your *facts* is to filter the
population to isolate what I call "the world"; by that, I mean
comparable countries.
In other words, cherry-pick to limit the facts to those that don't
contradict your bullshit narrative.
!Jones
2020-08-01 21:19:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:00:25 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
The valid lens through which to view your *facts* is to filter the
population to isolate what I call "the world"; by that, I mean
comparable countries.
In other words, cherry-pick to limit the facts to those that don't
contradict your bullshit narrative.
Call it what you like. You can't come up with a meaningful way of
comparing a Honda Fit to Wednesday; you must narrow the universe of
discourse, somehow.

*I* take the 30 top countries by HDI. If you don't like that
approach, fine... I'm over it. When I say: "the world", I don't
include an ant hill. I'm sorry I didn't say that up front; I thought
you knew.
max headroom
2020-08-01 21:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
The valid lens through which to view your *facts* is to filter the
population to isolate what I call "the world"; by that, I mean
comparable countries.
In other words, cherry-pick to limit the facts to those that don't
contradict your bullshit narrative.
Call it what you like. You can't come up with a meaningful way of
comparing a Honda Fit to Wednesday; you must narrow the universe of
discourse, somehow.
*I* take the 30 top countries by HDI. If you don't like that
approach, fine... I'm over it. When I say: "the world", I don't
include an ant hill. I'm sorry I didn't say that up front; I thought
you knew.
Your sloppy writing betrays your sloppy thinking. Don't blame us for your mistakes.
!Jones
2020-08-02 02:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Whatever
slate_leeper
2020-08-02 12:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Thus, when I said: "The US has the greatest [gun]
violence rate in the world", I meant within a population of socially
comparable societies.
In other words, you juggle things until you get the result you want.
Sounds like a typical "gun control" study to me <G>.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-08-03 13:18:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 08:19:09 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
In other words, you juggle things until you get the result you want.
I prefer not to put statements "in other words" any time...
particularly so when the "other words" have no relationship to the
original.
slate_leeper
2020-08-01 12:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course. The US has the
greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Let's try again: Please post a credible source for this statement.

Of course, it is a lie. We are not even in the to 10. The countries
with the ten highest crime rates in the world are:

Venezuela (84.49)
Papua New Guinea (81.93)
South Africa (77.49)
Afghanistan (76.23)
Honduras (76.11)
Trinidad and Tobago (73.19)
Brazil (68.88)
Peru (68.15)
El Salvador (67.96)
Guyana (67.66)

49th: United States (46.73)

(https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country)

And what is your definition of "violence rate?"


-dan z-
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-08-01 15:02:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:23:01 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Of course, it is a lie. We are not even in the to 10. The countries
Venezuela (84.49)
Papua New Guinea (81.93)
South Africa (77.49)
Afghanistan (76.23)
Honduras (76.11)
Trinidad and Tobago (73.19)
Brazil (68.88)
Peru (68.15)
El Salvador (67.96)
Guyana (67.66)
49th: United States (46.73)
(https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country)
You really have to work at it to be *that* ignorant. Do you *really*
believe that the US is doing well because we have a lower crime rate
than Venezuela?

Here are the top 30 countries sorted by Human Development Index (HDI):

Norway 0.954
Switzerland 0.946
Ireland 0.942
Germany 0.939
Hong Kong, China(SAR) 0.939
Australia 0.938
Iceland 0.938
Sweden 0.937
Singapore 0.935
Netherlands 0.933
Denmark 0.930
Finland 0.925
Canada 0.922
New Zealand 0.921
United Kingdom 0.920
United States 0.920
Belgium 0.919
Liechtenstein 0.917
Japan 0.915
Luxembourg 0.909
Israel 0.906
Korea (Republic of) 0.906
Slovenia 0.902
Spain 0.893
Czechia 0.891
France 0.891
Malta 0.885
Italy 0.883
Estonia 0.882

(Learn more about HDI rankings at:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI

You're perfectly free, of course, to define your own ranking system; I
prefer to use one accepted as valid by the world's scientific
community. I chose the top 30 because the US is almost dead center at
#15. There are 14 lower and 14 higher (and we're tied with the UK @
0.920.)

Yeah, if you choose Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan,
Honduras, et. al., the US will shine like a diamond stud in a pig's
arse. But look up the gun death rate for the 30 countries I gave you
and get back to us, OK?

Don't forget that an accidental shooting is a gun death; it doesn't
have to be a crime. (Also, be sure to include suicides in the
comparison.)

If you do that, you will find that the US is a full seven standard
deviations above the mean (assuming that you know what a standard
deviation is, of course). It's like ranking the weights of goldfish
and having an elephant walk into the pond... it doesn't even make any
sense to compare them.

But that's all been done repeatedly... and graphed, of course. I
could go find the graphs for you, but why? I'll bet you don't even
read *this* far.

**********************************************

While you're looking, I saw something else in the numbers: the crime
rates in any given country tend to rise and fall by a significant
percent on about a 60 year(or so) cycle; however, the national
rankings by crime rate change *very* little over time... i.e.: the US
was 49th (or about) 30 years ago.

Thus, when crime rates change in the US, there is a similar change in
Russia... that's strange! (I don't have a clue how to explain it.)
slate_leeper
2020-08-02 12:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:23:01 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Of course, it is a lie. We are not even in the to 10. The countries
Venezuela (84.49)
Papua New Guinea (81.93)
South Africa (77.49)
Afghanistan (76.23)
Honduras (76.11)
Trinidad and Tobago (73.19)
Brazil (68.88)
Peru (68.15)
El Salvador (67.96)
Guyana (67.66)
49th: United States (46.73)
(https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country)
You really have to work at it to be *that* ignorant. Do you *really*
believe that the US is doing well because we have a lower crime rate
than Venezuela?
Unbelievable. You make a claim about "crime rates." You are shown to
be wrong. Then you respond with info on the "human development index,"
which is NOT crime rates. What school did you go to?

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

-dan z-
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-08-03 13:25:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 08:16:15 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Unbelievable. You make a claim about "crime rates." You are shown to
be wrong. Then you respond with info on the "human development index,"
which is NOT crime rates. What school did you go to?
Well, it's a waste of time talking to you, sir. The point of using
the HDI was to find comparable populations. I stand by the statement
that the US "has the highest rate of gun violence in the world." I
really don't think that Venezuela, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, and
Honduras quite qualify as being "in the world"... they're not in the
"universe of discourse", anyway.

Of course, every time you post, it's obvious that you're in a
completely different reality plane... which led me to suggest that
this conversation is a waste of time for both of us.

Just Wondering
2020-08-01 20:54:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
... people who habitually have guns
What does that even mean? Is it like people who habitually
have clothes, or housing, or food?
Post by !Jones
are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course. The US has the
greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
"Impressive... Every word in that sentence was wrong."
- Luke Skywalker, Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
!Jones
2020-08-01 21:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Whatever...
slate_leeper
2020-08-02 12:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Whatever...
This seems to be his final answer on supporting any of his claims. It
is easily translated: "I can't."
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Just Wondering
2020-08-01 20:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 14:50:04 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
... people who habitually have guns
What does that even mean? Is it like people who habitually
have clothes, or housing, or food?
Post by !Jones
are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Then you can't be talking about all gun owners, because if
they were so disposed the gun violence rates would be a
hundred times greater.
Well, it is whatever you say it is, of course. The US has the
greatest violence rate in the world... well, OK, Nicaragua is higher.
Yes, I'm talking about *all* gun owners. These are violent,
aggressive people... this is why we have such a high rate of gun
violence.
Now, if you could back that up with something other than bullshit,
you might have something. But you can't, because it IS bullshit.

A newly-released report suggests that concealed carry permit holders are
the most law-abiding citizens in the U.S.

The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John
Lott, notes that it is “very rare for permit holders to violate the law”
and compares the crimes committed by permit holders to police officers
and the general population. The police committed 103 crimes per 100,000
officers, while the general population committed 3,813 per 100,000
people, 37 times as much as the police crime rate.

And yet, the same metric shows an even lower crime rate for permit holders.

“Combining the data for Florida and Texas data, we find that permit
holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth
the rate for police officers,” Lott writes. “Among police, firearms
violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit
holders in Florida and Texas, the rate is only 2.4 per 100,000.10 That
is just 1/7th of the rate for police officers. But there’s no need to
focus on Texas and Florida — the data are similar in other states.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler
!Jones
2020-08-01 21:22:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:58:18 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John
Lott...
Oh, gwad... Mary Rosh resurfaces!

I dunno how you keep a straight face!
max headroom
2020-08-01 21:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott...
Oh, gwad... Mary Rosh resurfaces!
I dunno how you keep a straight face!
If you can refute Lott, do so now. If all you have is ad hominem aspersions, you're a typical gun
grabber.
!Jones
2020-08-02 03:21:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:43:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
The report, written by Crime Prevention Research Center president John Lott...
Oh, gwad... Mary Rosh resurfaces!
I dunno how you keep a straight face!
If you can refute Lott, do so now. If all you have is ad hominem aspersions, you're a typical gun
grabber.
Lott is shooting fish in a bucket. He hasn't ever even been published;
no academic publisher would touch him!

You see, you don't have to *like* the person, Headley. You don't have
to agree with him. You don't even need to believe his statistical
methods are valid. Furthermore, it's OK for a researcher to be
dead-assed *wrong* to some extent; e.g.: the group of doctors headed
by Kellermann in 1993 had a glaring statistical error in their work
pointed out to them... they revised their conclusions and republished.
(It was a big deal to the gun loons, of course, but not to the
scientific community... that's how real science works.)

But, if a researcher *ever* has even the slightest hint of
intellectual dishonesty such as misrepresenting or falsifying data, or
*anything* that calls into question his or her fundamental integrity,
he or she is effectively finished... and you can stick a fork in that
turkey, Lott, because he's done. There was a 1997 study Lott claimed
and cited... after Lott was outed by the Mary Rosh affair, people
started looking and it was found that he had conducted no such study.
Some people cite things Lott said that were wrong, but I don't care;
however, claiming something is true that the writer knows to be untrue
is a whole different thing.

Now, I'm sure the gun loons will keep buying his books; he'll keep
writing his blog, I'm equally sure. OTOH, you'll never see his name
in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal because they won't touch him...
and that's about as "refuted" as you can possibly get in his business.
slate_leeper
2020-08-02 12:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Lott is shooting fish in a bucket. He hasn't ever even been published;
no academic publisher would touch him!
Once again displaying his awesome knowledge:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/6707841.John_R_Lott_Jr_
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Jones Is Lying Again
2020-08-02 12:30:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Aug 2020 08:25:20 -0400, slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Lott is shooting fish in a bucket. He hasn't ever even been published;
no academic publisher would touch him!
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/6707841.John_R_Lott_Jr_
I think he's referring to academic papers.

Of course, he's wrong there, too.

https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109011/witnesses/HHRG-116-AP07-Bio-LottJ-20190307.pdf

He has been one of the most productive and cited economists in the
world. Among economics, business and law professors his research is
currently the 27th most downloaded in the world.
During 1969 to 2000 he ranked 26th worldwide in terms of quality
adjusted total academic journal output, 4th in terms of total refereed
papers published, and 86th in terms of citations

But of course, Jones just makes shit up because he's a lying cunt.

Aren't ya, Jonesey?

[chuckle]
slate_leeper
2020-08-01 12:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
The point being that people who habitually have
guns are also people who are predisposed to violent, aggressive
behavior... to themselves and to others.
Once again, a credible reference for this claim?


So you are saying that hundreds of millions of people "are predisposed
to violent, aggressive behavior." I guess you mean they are human.

Note gun owners are above average in meaningful ways:


Education Level of Gun Owners

College Post Graduate – 30%
College Graduate – 37%
Some College – 41%
High School Graduate or Less – 42%


Income of Gun Owners

$75,000 a year – 47%
$50,000 a year – 49%
$30,000 a year – 44%

(https://brandongaille.com/gun-ownership-statistics-by-state-america/)



-dan z-
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-08-01 15:06:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 01 Aug 2020 08:12:01 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Education Level of Gun Owners
Since you're quick to point out that nobody knows how many gun owners
there are, how do you derive the level of education? ... or anything
else? (Oh... I see... you found it on the Internet! Impressive!)

All I know is that countries with promiscous (or poorly enforced) gun
laws tend to experience an elevated rate of gun violence.
slate_leeper
2020-08-02 12:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
All I know is that countries with promiscous (or poorly enforced) gun
laws tend to experience an elevated rate of gun violence.
How do you "know" this since you are unable to produce meaningful
references or cites for your claims?
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
max headroom
2020-07-28 04:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
!Jones
2020-07-28 14:02:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:37:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
I believe there were about ten emergency room doctors listed as
co-authors, Kellermann was the principle investigator on the CDC
grant; they didn't *ask* anything; the data came from emergency room
records of gunshot victims.

Please define the term: "belonged". If I steal a gun and get away
with it, does it belong to me? What difference does it make?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-28 14:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:37:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
I believe there were about ten emergency room doctors listed as
co-authors, Kellermann was the principle investigator on the CDC
grant; they didn't *ask* anything; the data came from emergency room
records of gunshot victims.
So, hearsay. Gotcha.
max headroom
2020-07-28 17:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
I believe there were about ten emergency room doctors listed as
co-authors, Kellermann was the principle investigator on the CDC
grant; they didn't *ask* anything; the data came from emergency room
records of gunshot victims.
Please read the report.

"After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy
for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched
to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios
were calculated with matched-pairs methods."
Post by !Jones
Please define the term: "belonged". If I steal a gun and get away
with it, does it belong to me? What difference does it make?
Did Breonna Taylor die because her man owned a gun? Kellermann would say Yes.
!Jones
2020-07-30 02:34:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:03:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Please read the report.
"After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a proxy
for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were matched
to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted odds ratios
were calculated with matched-pairs methods."
OK... I guess What are you quoting?

Do you understand what that's saying? It's a little like copying a
few lines of code and saying: "See? That's what the program does!"

It's meaningless.
max headroom
2020-07-30 15:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:37:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
I believe there were about ten emergency room doctors listed as
co-authors, Kellermann was the principle investigator on the CDC
grant; they didn't *ask* anything; the data came from emergency room
records of gunshot victims.
Please read the report.
"After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a
proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who were
matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and adjusted
odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods."
OK... I guess What are you quoting?
You *really* should read the report.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Post by !Jones
Do you understand what that's saying? ...
Yes. Your claim that "the data came from emergency room records of gunshot victims" was made up on
the spot, just more typical Jones bullshit.

You keep lying, I'll keep calling you out. Capisce?
!Jones
2020-07-31 20:31:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:07:17 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
You *really* should read the report.
I have; you probably haven't.
max headroom
2020-08-01 05:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:07:17 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 10:03:08 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:37:33 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please read the report. Kellermann never even *asked* to whom the guns used in the homicides
belonged.
I believe there were about ten emergency room doctors listed as
co-authors, Kellermann was the principle investigator on the CDC
grant; they didn't *ask* anything; the data came from emergency room
records of gunshot victims.
Please read the report.
"After each homicide, we obtained data from the police or medical examiner and interviewed a
proxy for the victim. The proxies' answers were compared with those of control subjects who
were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range. Crude and
adjusted odds ratios were calculated with matched-pairs methods."
OK... I guess What are you quoting?
You *really* should read the report.
I have; you probably haven't.
Yet you described the methodology falsely. You're not looking very sharp on this one, teacher.
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
Do you understand what that's saying? ...
Yes. Your claim that "the data came from emergency room records of gunshot victims" was made up
on the spot, just more typical Jones bullshit.
You keep lying, I'll keep calling you out. Capisce?
!Jones
2020-08-01 13:22:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 22:48:07 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Yet you described the methodology falsely. You're not looking very sharp on this one, teacher.
"Methodology" is almost always the longest chapter in any study. Yes,
I have read "Gun ownership as a Risk Factor..."; however, I don't feel
like sitting here throwing around little ten-word quotes.

My point was that I can predict what your summation of *any* study
will be simply by looking briefly at the conclusion. If the study
finds that guns are great, it's a creat study; if it's critical of
guns, the study is discredited... you live in a simple world.
max headroom
2020-08-01 16:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Yet you described the methodology falsely. You're not looking very sharp on this one, teacher.
"Methodology" is almost always the longest chapter in any study. Yes,
I have read "Gun ownership as a Risk Factor..."; however, I don't feel
like sitting here throwing around little ten-word quotes.
So you made up your own, out of whole cloth.
Post by !Jones
My point was that I can predict what your summation of *any* study
will be simply by looking briefly at the conclusion. If the study
finds that guns are great, it's a creat[sic] study; if it's critical of
guns, the study is discredited... you live in a simple world.
As do you.
!Jones
2020-08-01 21:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Whatever...
max headroom
2020-08-01 21:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Whatever...
Your capitulation is acknowledged.
!Jones
2020-08-02 02:37:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 14:44:11 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Whatever...
Your capitulation is acknowledged.
I wasn't talking about "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor..."; somebody
else brought that up. In the past nearly three decades of discussing
it, we've just about covered that one, I'd say.

I was discussing:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20

If you want to talk about something else, go ahead, but leave me out
of it.
max headroom
2020-08-02 13:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
Whatever...
Your capitulation is acknowledged.
I wasn't talking about "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor..."; somebody
else brought that up....
... In the past nearly three decades of discussing it, we've just about covered that one, I'd
say.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
If you want to talk about something else, go ahead, but leave me out of it.
If you *really* want to talk about it, click *here*-- news:***@4ax.com
or news:vrYUG.89811$***@fx07.iad
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-28 10:18:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Please read the title.
Please stop lying.
Scout
2020-08-03 13:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:07:34 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:02:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.
I am correct: you are deluded.
The researcher says that mass shootings, with all of their media
attention, pale beside the number of family shootings. As Kellermann
showed so many years ago in what remains the most widely cited gun
study: bringing a gun into a home increases the probability that a
family member will die by gunfire... probably from the gun they own.
Kellermann's "study" draws no such conclusion. Kellermann never even
*asked* to whom the guns used
in the homicides belonged.
Moron. Obviously, you haven't read *Gun ownership as a risk factor
for homicide in the home*. It's right there in his fucking title if
you'd bother to read it.
So are deadbolts to a much greater degree....but I don't see people
attempting to ban them.
slate_leeper
2020-07-28 12:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill. They see themselves as
something between 007 ("Bond... James Bond") and seal team six; cops
are too mundane.
Verification. It is now obvious that this person is seriously
paranoid.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
Scout
2020-08-03 13:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 22:02:44 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max headroom"
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
Kewl. Jones *realizes* he's deluded!
You are correct that I believe most carrins believe themselves to be
enforcers of Truth, Justice, and the American Way and are fantasizing
about getting their first confirmed DGU kill.
Can you support this contention? Because most people who carry, in my
experience, hope they never have cause to use their gun much less kill
someone with it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 13:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 14:24:35 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal....
Jones still thinks CCW holders are cop wannabes.
Goodness! Check this out! Headley and I finally agree on something!
That you're stupid for thinking CCW laws = 100% guarantee of stopping
mass shootings?

Everyone agrees with that.
Just Wondering
2020-07-27 02:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
“Contrary to the common ‘good guy with a gun’ argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws,” according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal.
In fact, states that have passed permissive concealed carry
legislation experience higher rates of gun homicides than states
without such laws, writes Emma E. Fridel, an assistant professor in
the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State
University.
In her study, which examines the effects of household gun ownership
and concealed carry legislation on the rates of mass shootings and
firearm homicides in all 50 states between 1991 and 2016, Fridel found
that a disproportionate number of mass shootings occur in states with
higher levels of gun ownership.
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Post by !Jones
Nevertheless, mass shootings — incidents in which four or more
individuals are killed by a firearm within 24 hours — occur
approximately 23 times per year on average and “account for less than
1 percent of all homicides in the United States.”
For this reason, Fridel argued that lawmakers on both sides of the gun
debate wrongly “assume that mass shootings are representative of
firearms homicide more generally, and therefore that strategies to
prevent mass shootings will also reduce gun violence overall.”
There are no effective strategies to prevent mass shootings.
Post by !Jones
As part of her methodology, Fridel used data from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Web-based Inquiry Statistics
Query and Reporting System.
Fridel also created a unique dataset of 592 mass shootings in the U.S.
from 1991 to 2016 by collecting gun violence data from a number of
sources, including the Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence
Archive, Everytown for Gun Safety, and LexisNexis.
Previous research has both supported and refuted Fridel’s argument
that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will not deter
tragedies like the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in Parkland, Fl., which left 17 dead; and the 2016 shooting at
the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fl., which left 49 dead and 53
wounded.
The Violence Policy Center (VPC), a group that advocates for stricter
gun policies, reported that between 2007 and 2019, concealed handgun
permit holders were responsible for at least 1,335 deaths not
involving self-defense.
“Concealed carry permit holders are supposed to be the ‘good guys’
with guns,” said VPC in a statement. “In reality, far too many permit
holders are a direct threat to public safety.”
However, a recent RAND survey found that laws allowing the concealed
carry of firearms would reduce murder rates. And, according to a 2013
report by the CDC, firearms are used in self-defense between 500,000
and 3,000,000 times per year.
“Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,” the CDC concluded.
Contrary to the CDC, Fridel found that at the state level, more
relaxed concealed carry laws were associated with a 10.8 percent
increase in the rate of firearm-involved homicides.
Additionally, higher rates of household gun ownership correlated with
a striking 53.5 percent increase in the rate of mass shootings,
according to the report.
There are no reliable data on household gun ownership rates.
Post by !Jones
In fact, the study said, “gun ownership was the only significant
macro-level predictor of mass shootings.”
That is, “other factors often cited in the wake of mass shootings,
such as access to mental healthcare, do not significantly influence
the rate of these crimes,” the author added.
The author also found that when concealed carry laws were taken
into account, gun ownership had a nominal effect on rates of
firearm-involved homicides.
Reflecting on these results, the author wrote that “gun ownership and
legislation do not impact mass shootings and firearm homicides in the
same way.”
The author is using dubious correlation statistics to argue causation
when he has zero data of causation..
Post by !Jones
“The results of the current study, for example, indicate that reducing
gun ownership…benefits mass shooting prevention efforts, while
reinstating more restrictive concealed carry legislation decreases the
overall firearms homicide rate,” Fridel wrote.
More correlation - causation BS.
Post by !Jones
Interestingly, the author deducted, “neither intervention appears to
have a deleterious effect on the other crime (e.g., higher levels of
gun ownership do not reduce the firearms homicide rate, and more
permissive concealed carry legislation is not associated with a
reduction in mass shootings).”
Therefore, rather than “focusing on the rare mass shooting, however
tragic such incidents may be,” policymakers should “enact distinct
prevention initiatives in order to address different types of gun
violence,” Friedel wrote.
That's probably correct. It doesn't require a BS statistical
analysis to arrive at that conclusion. The problem, those
"prevention initiatives" probably do nothing in the way of
actual prevention.
Post by !Jones
She added: “Considering that other policies not considered here may
prevent one type of gun violence while promoting another, it is
imperative that legislators recognize the distinct correlates of mass
shootings and firearms homicide and consider potential collateral
consequences before enacting an intervention.”
!Jones
2020-07-27 03:44:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.

And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
Just Wondering
2020-07-27 09:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.
And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
No, my response is: You claim it, now prove it.
But you won't. You won't because you can't.
You can't because the data aren't there, and saying
"is so" three times while pouting your lip and stamping
your feet won't make it so.
!Jones
2020-07-27 14:23:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:29:12 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.
And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
No, my response is: You claim it, now prove it.
But you won't. You won't because you can't.
You can't because the data aren't there, and saying
"is so" three times while pouting your lip and stamping
your feet won't make it so.
Anything you can count is a datum. We neither know how many guns are
in the world nor how many snakes are in the Everglades. I can make a
scientifically defendable claim that there are more snakes per acre in
the Everglades than in Los Angeles; I can show that a person living in
the Everglades has a greater probability of being snake bitten in any
given year than a resident of Los Angeles. We are gradually realizing
that the reason for the greater probability of snake bites is because
there are a hell of a lot of fuckin' snakes in the Everglades!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 14:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:29:12 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.
And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
No, my response is: You claim it, now prove it.
But you won't. You won't because you can't.
You can't because the data aren't there, and saying
"is so" three times while pouting your lip and stamping
your feet won't make it so.
Anything you can count is a datum. We neither know how many guns are
in the world nor how many snakes are in the Everglades. I can make a
scientifically defendable claim that there are more snakes per acre in
the Everglades than in Los Angeles; I can show that a person living in
the Everglades has a greater probability of being snake bitten in any
given year than a resident of Los Angeles. We are gradually realizing
that the reason for the greater probability of snake bites is because
there are a hell of a lot of fuckin' snakes in the Everglades!
STILL waiting for your proof of your paranoid fantasy that the NRA is
suppressing data.
Just Wondering
2020-07-27 17:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:29:12 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.
And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
No, my response is: You claim it, now prove it.
But you won't. You won't because you can't.
You can't because the data aren't there, and saying
"is so" three times while pouting your lip and stamping
your feet won't make it so.
Anything you can count is a datum. We neither know how many guns are
in the world nor how many snakes are in the Everglades. I can make a
scientifically defendable claim that there are more snakes per acre in
the Everglades than in Los Angeles; I can show that a person living in
the Everglades has a greater probability of being snake bitten in any
given year than a resident of Los Angeles. We are gradually realizing
that the reason for the greater probability of snake bites is because
there are a hell of a lot of fuckin' snakes in the Everglades!
That's not even a good red herring.
You claim states can be ranked by gun ownership rates "pretty
accurately." I call you out on that, and your response is
to remark that there are snakes in the Everglades. So I call
bullshit on your unsupportable bullshit.
!Jones
2020-07-27 18:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:55:19 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
That's not even a good red herring.
Oh, well.

I doubt you even know a "red herring" if one spat in your face...
but... as I said: Oh well.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 19:20:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:55:19 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
That's not even a good red herring.
Oh, well.
I doubt you even know a "red herring" if one spat in your face...
but... as I said: Oh well.
A red herring is something that is or is intended to be misleading or
distracting.

It's like when some dumb Texan fuck-knuckle claims the NRA is trying
to "suppress data," when the poster knows (a) that's complete
bullshit, since the NRA has no control over data, and (b) he knows
from the get go he could never prove such an outrageous fabrication.
Just Wondering
2020-07-27 19:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:55:19 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
That's not even a good red herring.
Oh, well.
I doubt you even know a "red herring" if one spat in your face...
but... as I said: Oh well.
A red herring is something that is or is intended to be misleading or
distracting.
It's like when some dumb Texan fuck-knuckle claims the NRA is trying
to "suppress data," when the poster knows (a) that's complete
bullshit, since the NRA has no control over data, and (b) he knows
from the get go he could never prove such an outrageous fabrication.
Or here, when Jonsie is called to back up a bullshit claim over
nonexistent reliable data on gun ownership rates by state, he
starts talking about snakes in the Everglades.
!Jones
2020-07-28 03:57:09 UTC
Permalink
The reason we can't get exact numbers is because the gun lobby owns
many legislators. There is reason to hope that this might change
soon.
max headroom
2020-07-28 04:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
The reason we can't get exact numbers is because the gun lobby owns
many legislators. There is reason to hope that this might change
soon.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....

The NEA is more powerful than the NRA!
!Jones
2020-07-28 12:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:39:17 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
The reason we can't get exact numbers is because the gun lobby owns
many legislators. There is reason to hope that this might change
soon.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....
The NEA is more powerful than the NRA!
Well, the "NRA" is just a brand; it's a nonprofit social welfare
organization covered under Code Section 501(c)(4) which prohibits most
(but not all) political activism. The actual "gun lobby" is known as
the *Institute for Legislative Action* (ILA) which is a registered
congressional lobby, has deep, well funded pockets, and is very
effective.

Neither the NRA nor the ILA contribute significant amounts of money to
political campaigns because these would be subject to disclosure. The
ILA is an effective market and political research machine; a candidate
with access to their service starts way ahead of others.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-28 13:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 21:39:17 -0700, in talk.politics.guns "max
Post by max headroom
Post by !Jones
The reason we can't get exact numbers is because the gun lobby owns
many legislators. There is reason to hope that this might change
soon.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha....
The NEA is more powerful than the NRA!
Well, the "NRA" is just a brand; it's a nonprofit social welfare
organization covered under Code Section 501(c)(4) which prohibits most
(but not all) political activism. The actual "gun lobby" is known as
the *Institute for Legislative Action* (ILA) which is a registered
congressional lobby, has deep, well funded pockets, and is very
effective.
Neither the NRA nor the ILA contribute significant amounts of money to
political campaigns because these would be subject to disclosure. The
ILA is an effective market and political research machine; a candidate
with access to their service starts way ahead of others.
So now Jones admits the NRA doesn't "own" any legislators, and even if
they did, it's not the "reason we can't get exact numbers."
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-28 10:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
The reason we can't get exact numbers is because the gun lobby owns
many legislators. There is reason to hope that this might change
soon.
More unprovable fantasy from Jones. Legislators don't count guns.

Nothing is funnier than when Jones take a short hiatus, returns to
t.p.g., steps on a land mine, and writhes in agony, trying to tie his
belt to staunch the flow of blood from his now missing leg as the
native surround him and poke him with sticks.
Scout
2020-08-03 13:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 03:29:12 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:38:44 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data; however, there
are data points that track the numbers pretty well. While there isn't
any way to say that there are x guns in a state, we can rank them by
relative numbers pretty accurately.
And, anticipating your predictable response: how do you know?
No, my response is: You claim it, now prove it.
But you won't. You won't because you can't.
You can't because the data aren't there, and saying
"is so" three times while pouting your lip and stamping
your feet won't make it so.
Anything you can count is a datum. We neither know how many guns are
in the world nor how many snakes are in the Everglades. I can make a
scientifically defendable claim that there are more snakes per acre in
the Everglades than in Los Angeles; I can show that a person living in
the Everglades has a greater probability of being snake bitten in any
given year than a resident of Los Angeles. We are gradually realizing
that the reason for the greater probability of snake bites is because
there are a hell of a lot of fuckin' snakes in the Everglades!
So what you're saying is that we should do something about the criminals and
getting them off the streets?
slate_leeper
2020-07-27 12:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-27 14:27:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 14:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
TRANSLATION: "Of course I can't prove it. But it gives me a chubby to
say it."
Just Wondering
2020-07-27 17:55:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
"Social science" isn't science.
!Jones
2020-07-27 18:36:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:55:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
"Social science" isn't science.
OK, well... you may be right, but the rest of the world thinks so.
talk.politics.guns is politics; politics is social science.
"Evidence" speaks to science. Whatever.

Waste of my time.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 19:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:55:59 -0600, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
"Social science" isn't science.
OK, well... you may be right, but the rest of the world thinks so.
talk.politics.guns is politics; politics is social science.
"Evidence" speaks to science. Whatever.
Waste of my time.
It is if you expected anyone to swallow your lying bullshit.
slate_leeper
2020-07-28 12:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:28:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
Please provide credible evidence of this assertion.
First you prove something... anything. Just pick some assertion and
prove it. Let's stick to the social sciences, shall we?
Wow. What a deflection. "I don't have to prove what *I* say" is his
claim. There: I have proven something.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-28 13:44:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:27:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Wow. What a deflection. "I don't have to prove what *I* say" is his
claim. There: I have proven something.
There is an old, tried and true troll one frequently encounters in
these "discussions" known (at least to me, anyway) as "the more
information, please" troll. It usually takes the form of a demand for
citations, proofs, or simply off-topic questions. The objective of
this troll is to force the initial poster off of his or her topic and
onto theirs. To defeat that, I refuse to entertain any questions or
demands until the person presenting has answered one of my questions.

#################################################

What the study found was that guns have no measurable effect on either
mass shootings or criminal attacks. Most of our shootings occur
within the family.

Virtually all of our current "studies" of defensive gun uses are based
entirely on survey data. Don't get me wrong, the survey is a valid
research tool; however, the reader must always bear in mind that when
the author says "DGU", what he or she actually counted were answers on
a survey instrument. Before survey data are valuable, there has to be
some way to tie the survey response to a probability of an associated
physical act. E.g.: "If the respondent answers 'A' on item one,
respondent has a 0.73 probability of buying your product in the next
month." That's useful; if a million people say they have used your
product, that's certainly positive, but if we have no idea whether or
not they actually *did* or what they will *do*, it's worthless.

It's a well known cliché among survey researchers that you can
probably get a million people to respond "yes" to having seen a space
alien.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-28 14:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:27:26 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Wow. What a deflection. "I don't have to prove what *I* say" is his
claim. There: I have proven something.
There is an old, tried and true troll one frequently encounters in
these "discussions" known (at least to me, anyway) as "the more
information, please" troll.
There's also the one where the poster-- usually you-- lies his ass off
about something, then spends the next several days squirming and
fidgeting trying to avoid supporting his lie-- since he can't.

Like when JW said
Post by !Jones
Post by slate_leeper
There are no reliable data on gun ownership rates by state.
and then you lied
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
slate_leeper
2020-07-29 12:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Most of our shootings occur
within the family.
False. The true statement is the perpetrator is "known to the victim."
In other words, the victim has seen that person before. That does
include family members, but also, for example, includes the
street-corner drug dealers and gang members that a person might pass
on the way home.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-30 02:40:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:16:11 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Most of our shootings occur
within the family.
False. The true statement is the perpetrator is "known to the victim."
In other words, the victim has seen that person before. That does
include family members, but also, for example, includes the
street-corner drug dealers and gang members that a person might pass
on the way home.
Well, I suffer from the condition wherein I speak the truth and it
pisses people off. Most shootings happen in or around the home with a
gun kept in that home. That does *not* usually include a dope dealer
on the corner unless he or she lives there. It would include a
next-door neighbor.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-30 10:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Well, I suffer from the condition wherein I speak the truth and it
pisses people off.
BWAH ha ha ha ha hah ah ah ah aha

Oh.

You're serious.
slate_leeper
2020-07-30 12:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 08:16:11 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Post by !Jones
Most of our shootings occur
within the family.
False. The true statement is the perpetrator is "known to the victim."
In other words, the victim has seen that person before. That does
include family members, but also, for example, includes the
street-corner drug dealers and gang members that a person might pass
on the way home.
Well, I suffer from the condition wherein I speak the truth and it
pisses people off. Most shootings happen in or around the home with a
gun kept in that home. That does *not* usually include a dope dealer
on the corner unless he or she lives there. It would include a
next-door neighbor.
Once again, please provide a credible source for these claims.
--
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.
!Jones
2020-07-31 20:33:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:18:32 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Once again, please provide a credible source for these claims.
Please provide proof of gravity.
max headroom
2020-08-01 05:43:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:18:32 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Once again, please provide a credible source for these claims.
Please provide proof of gravity.
IOW, Jones ain't got nuthin'.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-08-01 09:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 08:18:32 -0400, in talk.politics.guns slate_leeper
Post by slate_leeper
Once again, please provide a credible source for these claims.
Please provide proof of gravity.
TRANSLATION: How *DARE* you challenge Jones' right to lie!
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 13:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Well, the gun lobby does its best to suppress the data
ROFLMAO

Jones and his paranoia
Klaus Schadenfreude
2020-07-27 10:37:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
Nevertheless, mass shootings — incidents in which four or more
individuals are killed by a firearm within 24 hours — occur
approximately 23 times per year on average and “account for less than
1 percent of all homicides in the United States.”
But leftists like Jones don't care about those.
Scout
2020-08-03 13:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07418825.2020.1789693?journalCode=rjqy20
"Contrary to the common 'good guy with a gun' argument, mass shootings
were no more or less likely to occur in areas with more permissive
concealed carry laws," according to a researcher writing in the
Justice Quarterly journal.
IOW, there is NO reason to oppose CCW, since at worst it does no harm. At
best it could save lives.

Further the contention that imposing gun control to reduce violent crime is
also almost certainly wrong.

Thanks Jones, nice of you to admit there is no reason for more gun control.
Loading...