Slog Comments
KIRO TV Attacks Gun Buyback Program for Not Doing What It Never Claimed It Would Do
1
Have you seen the report?
It doesn't air until 5, so you are purely speculating.
And yes, it was suggested over and over by you and others that this would decrease gun violence.
Now you've lowered the metric so low that you actually say that it succeeded because we knew it would do anything and it succeeded in doing nothing. Being successful beyond expectations is cake when your expectation is nothing?
Dude, you're retarded. R E T A R D E D.
It doesn't air until 5, so you are purely speculating.
And yes, it was suggested over and over by you and others that this would decrease gun violence.
Now you've lowered the metric so low that you actually say that it succeeded because we knew it would do anything and it succeeded in doing nothing. Being successful beyond expectations is cake when your expectation is nothing?
Dude, you're retarded. R E T A R D E D.
2
Heck, they're wasting valuable police time asking why no charges in a house fire where 25 MJ plants were found.
News flash, the 21st Century called, time to move on, KIRO.
News flash, the 21st Century called, time to move on, KIRO.
4
Hey Goldy, I know that you like to use factual evidence... Have you actually read Kellerman's study? Where he "found the odds of homicide among households with a firearm to be 2.7 times higher than households without"?
Because he also found the following:
Variable Adjusted Odds Ratio
---------------------------------------------------
Illicit drug use 5.7
Home rented 4.4
Any household member hit or 4.4
hurt in a fight in the home
Case subject or control 3.7
lived alone
Gun or guns kept in the home 2.7
Any household member arrested 2.5
So, using Kellerman's own data, until the last few months when pot became legal, all the pot-smoking-but-not-gun-owning staffers of The Stranger were almost twice as likely to be a victim of a homicide than non-pot-smoking-gun-owners.
Additionally, whether or not you believe Wikipedia, it includes this paragraph on the 1993 study by Kellerman:
"Pro-gun groups claimed, however, that this was only a truncated version of Kellermann’s full dataset, arguing that it omitted his crucial data on whether guns used in the firearm homicides he studied belonged to anyone in the victim’s household,[14] a critical issue in judging the plausibility of his conclusion that owning a gun caused an increased risk of being murdered. This information had clearly been gathered by Kellermann since it was used in another of his studies.[15] Once this information was taken into account, it was found that the effect of household gun ownership on the risk of homicide could not have been more than 6% of the effect that was estimated by Kellermann.[16]"
More...
Because he also found the following:
Variable Adjusted Odds Ratio
---------------------------------------------------
Illicit drug use 5.7
Home rented 4.4
Any household member hit or 4.4
hurt in a fight in the home
Case subject or control 3.7
lived alone
Gun or guns kept in the home 2.7
Any household member arrested 2.5
So, using Kellerman's own data, until the last few months when pot became legal, all the pot-smoking-but-not-gun-owning staffers of The Stranger were almost twice as likely to be a victim of a homicide than non-pot-smoking-gun-owners.
Additionally, whether or not you believe Wikipedia, it includes this paragraph on the 1993 study by Kellerman:
"Pro-gun groups claimed, however, that this was only a truncated version of Kellermann’s full dataset, arguing that it omitted his crucial data on whether guns used in the firearm homicides he studied belonged to anyone in the victim’s household,[14] a critical issue in judging the plausibility of his conclusion that owning a gun caused an increased risk of being murdered. This information had clearly been gathered by Kellermann since it was used in another of his studies.[15] Once this information was taken into account, it was found that the effect of household gun ownership on the risk of homicide could not have been more than 6% of the effect that was estimated by Kellermann.[16]"
5
@4 Kellermann's is only one of many that reaches similar conclusions. I cited it because it provides an actual number, and I had a link conveniently at hand. But it only refers to homicides, and doesn't address the increased risk of death or injury due to suicide, accident, or other.
Play the skeptic game all you want. It doesn't change the fact that having a gun in the house substantially increases your risk of being killed or injured by a firearm.
Play the skeptic game all you want. It doesn't change the fact that having a gun in the house substantially increases your risk of being killed or injured by a firearm.
7
Goldy,
Seriously, just admit you hate guns. Stop playing the numbers game. You lose every time.
Just admit you believe the nation is safer without any guns and move on.
Otherwise, you are losing the arguments.
And please, stop hanging onto this stupid buyback as a way to ignore the facts that no substantial gun control will happen in your lifetime cause the argument is a losing one.
Stop beating around the bush. Admit what your dream world would be.
Seriously, just admit you hate guns. Stop playing the numbers game. You lose every time.
Just admit you believe the nation is safer without any guns and move on.
Otherwise, you are losing the arguments.
And please, stop hanging onto this stupid buyback as a way to ignore the facts that no substantial gun control will happen in your lifetime cause the argument is a losing one.
Stop beating around the bush. Admit what your dream world would be.
8
"But it only refers to homicides, and doesn't address the increased risk of death or injury due to suicide, accident, or other."
Yep. If I had a nickel for every "responsible gun owner" in my life who sounded EXACTLY like #4 before blowing their own head off I'd have a dime. Suicide is a risk factor not to be overlooked. The "I'm so chronically depressed" stereotype isn't the actuality; rather 1/2 of all suicides are impulsive decisions by people not chronically depressed or otherwise mentally ill. Stressful week, ugly fight with spouse, future's looking a little bleak at that second, couple of cocktails and fuck it, blammo. And guess what? This pathology increases as men move into and through middle-age.
No gun equals far less likely to damage oneself impulsively. Of course it will never happen to you, as it could never happen to both the guys I knew who said the exact same thing. Their guns in fact made them safer you see ....
Yep. If I had a nickel for every "responsible gun owner" in my life who sounded EXACTLY like #4 before blowing their own head off I'd have a dime. Suicide is a risk factor not to be overlooked. The "I'm so chronically depressed" stereotype isn't the actuality; rather 1/2 of all suicides are impulsive decisions by people not chronically depressed or otherwise mentally ill. Stressful week, ugly fight with spouse, future's looking a little bleak at that second, couple of cocktails and fuck it, blammo. And guess what? This pathology increases as men move into and through middle-age.
No gun equals far less likely to damage oneself impulsively. Of course it will never happen to you, as it could never happen to both the guys I knew who said the exact same thing. Their guns in fact made them safer you see ....
9
As bad as the Seattle Times' reporting is, it's still better than local TV "news" by at least an order of magnitude. Might as well by critiquing the Weekly World News.
10
Suicide, although tragic, does not generally make the streets more dangerous (which is what the TFS is about, apparently). Getting criminals off the streets does work though, which is why the murder rate in the country is down to levels near what we had in the late 1950s.
People aren't generally holding up liquor stores or mugging folks with old hunting rifles, which is what most of what the buyback program purchased. They did bag a couple hundred handguns, which when multiplied by the number of homes that are burglarized each year in the city, may result in one or two criminals having to commit two felonies instead of one to purchase a firearm.
In terms of bang for buck in public safety, this doesn't seem like a great use of private dollars. It may be effective political theater, but that's not the same thing.
People aren't generally holding up liquor stores or mugging folks with old hunting rifles, which is what most of what the buyback program purchased. They did bag a couple hundred handguns, which when multiplied by the number of homes that are burglarized each year in the city, may result in one or two criminals having to commit two felonies instead of one to purchase a firearm.
In terms of bang for buck in public safety, this doesn't seem like a great use of private dollars. It may be effective political theater, but that's not the same thing.
11
And yet, with 20 minutes to go before the report airs. Goody has only NOT seen it, but also uses his spidey sense to rebut it.
Sounds like smeagol knows gollum is full of shit.
Fool
Sounds like smeagol knows gollum is full of shit.
Fool
12
God, this fat, ugly fuck Goldy sounds like Limbaugh now. "What? I don't remember saying that! Show me the transcript!"
It's all right here on this site you white trash piece of shit.
It's all right here on this site you white trash piece of shit.
13
Good God, We all ready know The Stranger's editorial view on guns. Why not at least wait until KIRO runs their story and then report on it.
In other news Alaska is awash with guns and has murder rates comparable to Western European countries per Alaska Dispatch reporting by Craig Medre…. Perhaps the guns are not the source of violent crime because, you know, they are inanimate tools without free will and actual legal uses. Too bad that doesn't fit Goldy's world view enough to be worthy of reporting.
In other news Alaska is awash with guns and has murder rates comparable to Western European countries per Alaska Dispatch reporting by Craig Medre…. Perhaps the guns are not the source of violent crime because, you know, they are inanimate tools without free will and actual legal uses. Too bad that doesn't fit Goldy's world view enough to be worthy of reporting.
14
One of the best arguments in favor of gun control is how angry so many gun advocates seem to be. Get ahold of yourselves, guys. Gun buybacks are voluntary. They're no threat to you.
15
@14
Voluntary or not they are a wast of city funds and police resources that could better be used fighting actual crime. Not to mention how McGyn's little photo op tied up traffic on the way to Harborview Medical Center, the regions trauma center as well as the other local hospitals that specialize in Cardiac, Neurological, and Scalar care.
Funny that you and the mayor are so concerned about "if it saves one life" but give zero fucks about delaying ambulances in REAL life or death situations where seconds count.
Voluntary or not they are a wast of city funds and police resources that could better be used fighting actual crime. Not to mention how McGyn's little photo op tied up traffic on the way to Harborview Medical Center, the regions trauma center as well as the other local hospitals that specialize in Cardiac, Neurological, and Scalar care.
Funny that you and the mayor are so concerned about "if it saves one life" but give zero fucks about delaying ambulances in REAL life or death situations where seconds count.
16
Don't forget the Candlelight March and Vigil Against Gun Violence on Capitol Hill on Saturday night. www.candlelight.org
17
@14
"Gun buybacks are voluntary. They're no threat to you."
Who cares about them?
You've seen the pictures of people buying guns from the other people in line.
"Fewer guns, fewer crimes. Streets are safer, so you're safer. That's the hype, so they claim," the KIRO promo leads in with.
Goldy, that is what you keep claiming.
Everyone here who supports gun owners TOLD you that the buy back would accomplish nothing with regards to reducing crime.
Because getting the guns away from law-abiding citizens does NOT get the guns away from the criminals.
And I fully expect to be posting that AGAIN the next time you're on a "guns do not make you safe" rant.
"Gun buybacks are voluntary. They're no threat to you."
Who cares about them?
You've seen the pictures of people buying guns from the other people in line.
"Fewer guns, fewer crimes. Streets are safer, so you're safer. That's the hype, so they claim," the KIRO promo leads in with.
Goldy, that is what you keep claiming.
Everyone here who supports gun owners TOLD you that the buy back would accomplish nothing with regards to reducing crime.
Because getting the guns away from law-abiding citizens does NOT get the guns away from the criminals.
And I fully expect to be posting that AGAIN the next time you're on a "guns do not make you safe" rant.
18
You'd think KIRO would have learned a lesson on responsible journalism after the Washington News Council chewed them up and spit them out this summer.
Maybe its time for a re-run.
Maybe its time for a re-run.
19
@13 Um, according to FBI data, the murder rate in Alaska was 4.0 per 100,000 in 2011. By comparison, it was 2.4 in Washington State, and 4.7 nationally. You have to look to former Soviet bloc states to find "Western countries" with higher murder rates than Alaska's.
So good job making shit up.
So good job making shit up.
20
@19
The former Soviet bloc, or one of the states with strict gun control:
Illinois: 5.6 per 100,000 in 2011
California: 4.8 per 100,000
New Jersey: 4.3 per 100,000
Also most former soviet states also have strict gun control.
What were you saying about making shit up again?
The former Soviet bloc, or one of the states with strict gun control:
Illinois: 5.6 per 100,000 in 2011
California: 4.8 per 100,000
New Jersey: 4.3 per 100,000
Also most former soviet states also have strict gun control.
What were you saying about making shit up again?
21
@5 - Goldy, you say, "Play the skeptic game all you want. It doesn't change the fact that having a gun in the house substantially increases your risk of being killed or injured by a firearm. "
I'd like to define the "substantially" part. Could you provide some links to the "many that reaches similar conclusions."?
Because, if my math is correct, independent analysis of Kellerman's data found a very very small (.15 times) increase in the likelihood of homicide. And, even if you use Kellerman's own findings, just living alone makes you much more likely to be a homicide victim than having a gun in the house.
@8, While I realize that anecdotal evidence is king around here, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a link to a peer reviewed study that is available for access online, that supports your claims.
And yes, I am aware that studies are hard to find after the NRA successfully lobbied to strip funding from firearms research. However, it was precisely the sort of finding by Kellerman, that were politically motivated and did not hold up to later scrutiny that caused that lobbying.
Additionally, for the amount that Kellerman's research is quoted, without any sort of reference that his research may have been flawed (much like Goldy did here), although I don't necessarily agree with it, I can completely understand the NRA's viewpoint here.
I'd like to define the "substantially" part. Could you provide some links to the "many that reaches similar conclusions."?
Because, if my math is correct, independent analysis of Kellerman's data found a very very small (.15 times) increase in the likelihood of homicide. And, even if you use Kellerman's own findings, just living alone makes you much more likely to be a homicide victim than having a gun in the house.
@8, While I realize that anecdotal evidence is king around here, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide a link to a peer reviewed study that is available for access online, that supports your claims.
And yes, I am aware that studies are hard to find after the NRA successfully lobbied to strip funding from firearms research. However, it was precisely the sort of finding by Kellerman, that were politically motivated and did not hold up to later scrutiny that caused that lobbying.
Additionally, for the amount that Kellerman's research is quoted, without any sort of reference that his research may have been flawed (much like Goldy did here), although I don't necessarily agree with it, I can completely understand the NRA's viewpoint here.
22
You know what really increases your chances of being shot with a gun? Being black/latino and being around black/latino people. Them facts don't lie.
White/Asian and middle class? No more dangerous than driving a car.
White/Asian and middle class? No more dangerous than driving a car.
23
Alaska's contradiction? Lots of guns, few homicides
Craig Medred
February 6, 2013
Can someone familiar with the country's latest gun-control debate explain Alaska to me?
This is a gun-crazy state. Guns are everywhere. About 58 percent of Alaskans own a gun, according to the Washington Post. Given that the U.S. Census says the average household size in the 49th state is 2.65 people, there is, on average, 1.53 guns per household.
Or to make this simple, there is basically a gun in every house.
Alaska homicide rate dropping
And yet, the Alaska homicide rate for 2011, the latest year for which figures are available, was 4 per 100,000 people. That's significantly lower than the 6.4 per 100,000 people for New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg likes to brag about how many guns the New York Police Department has taken away from the citizenry, and about a fifth of the homicide rate for Chicago (19.4 per 100,000), a city with stringent gun control that has been labeled the world's "Deadliest Global City."
But none of that really concerns the question that begs an answer.
If guns in and of themselves are evil, if more guns means people are more likely to kill other people, why does the death toll for Alaska "firearms homicides" stand at 2.6 per 100,000? Actually, the number is probably lower than that now. The data on specifically how people kill each other -- with guns, knifes, beatings -- dates to 2004, and the Alaska homicide rate has fallen about 25 percent since then. But suffice to say, fewer than half the people killed in homicides in Alaska are killed with a gun.
The state's gun-homicide rate is a low number. At 2.6, your odds of being shot and killed in Alaska are lower than your odds of being murdered in the European principality of Liechtenstein (2.8 per 100,000) and about the same as your odds for being murdered in Luxembourg (2.5 per 100,000). Neither country is known as a hotbed of violent crime.
Swiss mandate gun ownership
Then again, the chances of being killed with a firearm in Alaska -- or in Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, for that matter -- are a lot higher than the chances of being murdered in Switzerland. The death rate there is 0.7 per 100,000, and gun ownership is mandatory for men of military age, some of whom are volatile young men. Some studies in this country have pinpointed men between the age of 21 and 30 as responsible for 40 to 50 percent of all homicides. The Swiss, however, arm them. And they don't only arm them, they give them assault rifles.
"Between the ages of 21 and 32 (all) men serve as front-line troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home," according to the BBC. The 24 rounds is a government requirement. People can buy more if they want.
(A personal note here. Young men casually handling automatic weapons in train stations and elsewhere in Switzerland always scared the beejesus out of me. It isn't so much that they are armed with automatic weapons, but that their handling sometimes seemed inattentive, even careless. Nonetheless, there do not appear to be a lot of accidental shootings in Switzerland, or at least people dying from accidental shootings.)
The Swiss clearly illustrate there are factors other than the simple availability of guns in play when it comes to violence, death and firearms. And so, it would seem, does Alaska. With all the guns around in the 49th state, why do slightly more people die due to knifings, beatings or other violence -- 3.05 per 100,000 -- than shootings -- 2.58 per 100,000?
Status symbol?
Or maybe the better question is this:
Why is death by firearm so much more prevalent in major U.S. cities, most of which have made it harder for people to legally obtain guns than in the Wild West of Alaska? Wouldn't you think that given gun control in those places, the ratio of knife, beating and other deaths would increase in proportion to gun deaths?
Or have gun bans, helped by pop culture, simply made it something of a status symbol to kill someone with a firearm in urban America?
More...
Craig Medred
February 6, 2013
Can someone familiar with the country's latest gun-control debate explain Alaska to me?
This is a gun-crazy state. Guns are everywhere. About 58 percent of Alaskans own a gun, according to the Washington Post. Given that the U.S. Census says the average household size in the 49th state is 2.65 people, there is, on average, 1.53 guns per household.
Or to make this simple, there is basically a gun in every house.
Alaska homicide rate dropping
And yet, the Alaska homicide rate for 2011, the latest year for which figures are available, was 4 per 100,000 people. That's significantly lower than the 6.4 per 100,000 people for New York City, where Mayor Michael Bloomberg likes to brag about how many guns the New York Police Department has taken away from the citizenry, and about a fifth of the homicide rate for Chicago (19.4 per 100,000), a city with stringent gun control that has been labeled the world's "Deadliest Global City."
But none of that really concerns the question that begs an answer.
If guns in and of themselves are evil, if more guns means people are more likely to kill other people, why does the death toll for Alaska "firearms homicides" stand at 2.6 per 100,000? Actually, the number is probably lower than that now. The data on specifically how people kill each other -- with guns, knifes, beatings -- dates to 2004, and the Alaska homicide rate has fallen about 25 percent since then. But suffice to say, fewer than half the people killed in homicides in Alaska are killed with a gun.
The state's gun-homicide rate is a low number. At 2.6, your odds of being shot and killed in Alaska are lower than your odds of being murdered in the European principality of Liechtenstein (2.8 per 100,000) and about the same as your odds for being murdered in Luxembourg (2.5 per 100,000). Neither country is known as a hotbed of violent crime.
Swiss mandate gun ownership
Then again, the chances of being killed with a firearm in Alaska -- or in Liechtenstein or Luxembourg, for that matter -- are a lot higher than the chances of being murdered in Switzerland. The death rate there is 0.7 per 100,000, and gun ownership is mandatory for men of military age, some of whom are volatile young men. Some studies in this country have pinpointed men between the age of 21 and 30 as responsible for 40 to 50 percent of all homicides. The Swiss, however, arm them. And they don't only arm them, they give them assault rifles.
"Between the ages of 21 and 32 (all) men serve as front-line troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home," according to the BBC. The 24 rounds is a government requirement. People can buy more if they want.
(A personal note here. Young men casually handling automatic weapons in train stations and elsewhere in Switzerland always scared the beejesus out of me. It isn't so much that they are armed with automatic weapons, but that their handling sometimes seemed inattentive, even careless. Nonetheless, there do not appear to be a lot of accidental shootings in Switzerland, or at least people dying from accidental shootings.)
The Swiss clearly illustrate there are factors other than the simple availability of guns in play when it comes to violence, death and firearms. And so, it would seem, does Alaska. With all the guns around in the 49th state, why do slightly more people die due to knifings, beatings or other violence -- 3.05 per 100,000 -- than shootings -- 2.58 per 100,000?
Status symbol?
Or maybe the better question is this:
Why is death by firearm so much more prevalent in major U.S. cities, most of which have made it harder for people to legally obtain guns than in the Wild West of Alaska? Wouldn't you think that given gun control in those places, the ratio of knife, beating and other deaths would increase in proportion to gun deaths?
Or have gun bans, helped by pop culture, simply made it something of a status symbol to kill someone with a firearm in urban America?
24
@21
"And yes, I am aware that studies are hard to find after the NRA successfully lobbied to strip funding from firearms research."
I have, on multiple occasions, suggested that The Stranger publish a running list of any and all shootings in the area.
With as much information as possible gathered on each incident.
Whether it was just wounds or death.
Even throw in shootings where no one seems to have been hit.
But that has not happened yet.
Why wait for national/federal/whatever research when they have the perfect platform for LOCAL research.
"And yes, I am aware that studies are hard to find after the NRA successfully lobbied to strip funding from firearms research."
I have, on multiple occasions, suggested that The Stranger publish a running list of any and all shootings in the area.
With as much information as possible gathered on each incident.
Whether it was just wounds or death.
Even throw in shootings where no one seems to have been hit.
But that has not happened yet.
Why wait for national/federal/whatever research when they have the perfect platform for LOCAL research.
26
@21 Go to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center firearms research home page, and peruse the many studies for yourself.
27
One thing I've learned since Sandyhook is that gun nuts love their guns more than they love their families and possessions combined. Start talking about universal gun registration and background checks, mandatory safety training, paying people to voluntarily turn in their guns, whatever it is the Obama plan is proposing, and you'd think the government was threatening to burn their houses and turn them into the street. My god, people. Chill. Uncle Sam will not march into your homes and take away your toys. Seriously.
29
The gun enthusiasts are more interested in railing against straw men than in promoting safe gun ownership. People who give up their guns for a gift card are unlikely to be experts in their use. They are safer without them.
30
@29
I agree many of the people who were turning guns in were not trained in gun safety, judging from the muzzle and trigger control. People were leaning on their guns with the muzzles pointed at themselves or others with their fingers on the trigger. I am damn surprised that no one got shot.
However they can turn in any of hteir firearms to a police precinct at any time or sell them to some one like me, a concealed pistol license holder with extensive firearms safety training and a secure gun safe.
This buyback was a feel good photo op for the mayor and police chief, it took tax payer money, caused a traffic jam and delayed Emergency Medical Services in their transport of patients to local emergency rooms. It also had the side effect of creating a legal open air gun market where one did not previously exist.
The buyback did absolutely nothing to keep the citizens of this city safe from gun violence, in fact if anything it put more people at risk and certainly put more peoples lives at danger.
For what?
A local politicians political stunt.
And to personally reaffirm my position on gun safety I am now putting Col. Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of firearms safety. in all my firearms related slog postings.
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
More...
I agree many of the people who were turning guns in were not trained in gun safety, judging from the muzzle and trigger control. People were leaning on their guns with the muzzles pointed at themselves or others with their fingers on the trigger. I am damn surprised that no one got shot.
However they can turn in any of hteir firearms to a police precinct at any time or sell them to some one like me, a concealed pistol license holder with extensive firearms safety training and a secure gun safe.
This buyback was a feel good photo op for the mayor and police chief, it took tax payer money, caused a traffic jam and delayed Emergency Medical Services in their transport of patients to local emergency rooms. It also had the side effect of creating a legal open air gun market where one did not previously exist.
The buyback did absolutely nothing to keep the citizens of this city safe from gun violence, in fact if anything it put more people at risk and certainly put more peoples lives at danger.
For what?
A local politicians political stunt.
And to personally reaffirm my position on gun safety I am now putting Col. Jeff Cooper's 4 rules of firearms safety. in all my firearms related slog postings.
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
31
@26, Goldy, thanks for the link. However, as far as I can tell, almost all the data there is abstracts and/or simply titles of the articles, which us peons don't have access to.. Is there anywhere that you know of where the actual articles are aggregated? I did order Hemenway's book..
Also, not a complaint, merely an observation - Miller and Hemenway are responsible for almost all the articles I see. Many articles written by the same team is not exactly the same thing as many people coming to the same conclusion.
Also, not a complaint, merely an observation - Miller and Hemenway are responsible for almost all the articles I see. Many articles written by the same team is not exactly the same thing as many people coming to the same conclusion.
32
Okay, I did a little experiment with one of the studies in the link provided:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter…
"For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership.....The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NJ, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, ID, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT)."
Now, I don't have numbers for suicide per state handy, but I do have numbers for firearm homicide per state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenc…
Now, if we take the 6 states with the lowest firearm ownership and compare them to the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership (same states as used in the study), we get about 1.7 homicides per 100k as an average in those 6 states, compared to 2.9/100k as an average in the 15 states. (These results are highly skewed by two states - if you remove LA and MS, the average is only 2.08/100k). So, fine, it looks like the high firearm ownership states have nearly twice the rate of firearm homicide!!
Except, if you actually consider the 10 lowest states by firearm ownership:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2…
You get an average rate of 2.98/100k which is a HIGHER average than the 15 states with the highest percentage of firearm ownership. Now, Louisiana, which has the highest rate of homicide, and firearm homicide in the country is not even in the top 10 for firearm ownership. If you take the top 10 states for firearm ownership, you get an average of 2.3/100k, which is substantially lower than the 2.9/100k that you get for the top 15.
Gun-control-nuts keep going on about gun-nuts cherry picking data. However, it appears, at least from this one small exercise, that gun-control-nuts are at least as guilty about cherry picking data themselves.
And yes, I am fully aware that I am not comparing Apples to Apples. If someone can provide a link to suicide data, I'd be happy to run the numbers.
More...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter…
"For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership.....The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NJ, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, ID, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT)."
Now, I don't have numbers for suicide per state handy, but I do have numbers for firearm homicide per state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenc…
Now, if we take the 6 states with the lowest firearm ownership and compare them to the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership (same states as used in the study), we get about 1.7 homicides per 100k as an average in those 6 states, compared to 2.9/100k as an average in the 15 states. (These results are highly skewed by two states - if you remove LA and MS, the average is only 2.08/100k). So, fine, it looks like the high firearm ownership states have nearly twice the rate of firearm homicide!!
Except, if you actually consider the 10 lowest states by firearm ownership:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2…
You get an average rate of 2.98/100k which is a HIGHER average than the 15 states with the highest percentage of firearm ownership. Now, Louisiana, which has the highest rate of homicide, and firearm homicide in the country is not even in the top 10 for firearm ownership. If you take the top 10 states for firearm ownership, you get an average of 2.3/100k, which is substantially lower than the 2.9/100k that you get for the top 15.
Gun-control-nuts keep going on about gun-nuts cherry picking data. However, it appears, at least from this one small exercise, that gun-control-nuts are at least as guilty about cherry picking data themselves.
And yes, I am fully aware that I am not comparing Apples to Apples. If someone can provide a link to suicide data, I'd be happy to run the numbers.
33
This is the most coverage that KIRO has had in a decade...and this thread has more people on it than who watch KIRO's newscast
35
We have anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 guns in the city, and we're supposed to think the buyback was anything but a cheap stunt?
36
@30 Do you have the same amount of firearms safety training as this guy, jackoff. I bet you do. This is who you are.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/ne…
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/18/ne…
37
#36, call all the names you want, but there won't be any new gun control. As usual, the people on your side of the issue have descended into their typical self-referential, ineffectual morass of complete horseshit.
Comments (38) RSS