Blogs
Jan 21, 2014 at 8:58 am
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I like voting, and choosing. I'd be happy without a second amendment though.
Download .pdf here.
Any moment now this thread will be invaded by the guy gun nuts who are willing to take their own lower odds for the extremely unlikely moment in which they could execute a stranger, or the more likely opportunity to shoot the women they profess to love.
They'll consider it a fair trade.
I also think we should hesitate to deal in absolutes. The words 'always' and 'never' are often better replaced by 'usually' and 'rarely', or some other versions with similar meanings.
A proposed work-around: break the sample into three groups. Control group is people who don't have guns around them, experimental group 1 is people who have had guns around them for less than one year, experimental group 2 is people who have had guns around them for more than one year.
Yeah, definitely couldn't do it in the "real-world" (i.e., randomly assigning people to own guns or not). But there are some potential lab experiments that could maybe give some power to the argument.
I recall some studies I read in the past about having participants self-report aggressive feelings after walking into the lab where there's either A) a bunch of umbrellas in a corner, or B) a stack of rifles in the corner. The rifle group reported higher aggressiveness as I recall. I wish I had the article to link to but I can't remember the title or author and a google scholar search didn't turn up what I was looking for.
No matter how many deaths were prevented by the defensive use of a firearm, it was not sufficient to overcome the increased risk of death caused by having a gun in the home.
FTFY
we decided not to include population-level data because we were concerned about ecological bias; for example, gun ownership data on a population level may not reflect the persons who actually commit suicide, so no true link between gun ownership and harms outcomes can be made.
In summary, we found the association between firearm availability and homicide to be more modest than that between firearm availability and completed suicide. Future studies of firearm access and homicide risk should focus on the role that social factors and surrounding living conditions play in homicide victimization.
Possessing a gun makes you less safe not more safe
"The evidence suggests that on average, having a gun actually increases the likelihood that a person will be injured or killed, rather than that it will be used to protect that individual from harm. If you own a gun, the most likely person you are to shoot is yourself. The next most likely person you are to shoot is a close family member. Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder. Firearms are more often discharged in a homicide, suicide or an accident, than in self-defense."
http://www.examiner.com/article/possessi…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11…
But as long as #16 and his ilk can have their little Rambo fantasies he doesn't give a shit about the lives of his family or any friend or neighbor who sets foot in his home.
Oh, well than I have an easy answer to your panic attacks about accidental shootings.
Don't buy a gun, which is as surely your right as it's mine to buy one.
See how easy that is?
And for the record I own one non functional rifle because of sentimental family value- it having belonged to my great grandfather.
Guns are a tool (not, despite lefty paranoia, a lethal killing machine that could discharge fatally anyplace, anytime) I just don't need.
Bit you know what else? Your right to be a vocal or literary add about the second amendment? Yeah, the rest of our rights are as strong as the legal force we give the right to bear arms. Think on that over your tofu sandwich on gluten free bread.
But I'm not wetting my pants three decades later, like the pissy pants gun nuts sobbing on their pillows imagining extremely unlikely home invasions.
I'm still under 5' tall, but I'd rather not endanger myself, my family, the children of my friends or neighbors -- or those who could be shot by a gun stolen from me -- for a penis substitute toy.
That's the difference between you and me: reality versus pissing your pants over imaginary boogie men.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal…
@26
Oppose the right of gun ownership all you want. Just don't gut the Constitution while playing your disingenuous little game.
And as Chefjoe pointed out, the study authors don't draw the conclusion Goldstein lied about them drawing.
Boogeymen like 'gun nuts' whose stray bullets have just barely missed you countless times? That kind of boogeymen?
I don't know. If enough people do though and can mount a successful campaign to alter the 2nd Amendment through constitutional process my complaint ends though.
Yes, they did not provide a link at a population level. Their study linked the risk at the individual level. And the next sentence after your bolded one:
"Despite their limitations, individual-level data, such as those we included in this study, are ideal because confounding and explanatory reasons for the relationship among firearms and suicide and homicide can be better explored."
I don't see the problem... Could you elaborate?
Not if their phallic toys are threatened, in any case.
Talk about comparing apples to hand grenades.
I mean the point of commenting is discourse not just screaming your right cause everyone else is bad.
I bet more Americans die from apple related causes than from hand grenades.
/not that it matters, but it got me curious.
For some reason, gun nuts can never make -- or understand -- analogies.
It's the "logic" part of analogy that stumps 'em.
So yeah. what were you babbling about?
@24: Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.
However, a review article (labeled as such in the primary text which I'm doubtful Goldy read) combining 15 earlier data sets isn't expected to contradict all the data sets that went into it. The data used from homicide studies were from 2 studies of men and 3 studies with women..... not exactly an exhaustive data set.
I would like to see these studies discount any data involving felons and anyone who had "gun access" due to a felon who should not have a gun. I think studies that involve actual responsible gun owners would be more informative than ones that involve people that the law says shouldn't own guns.