Gun research being kept in the dark ages

[Survivalist]

Now people like you can only say dishonest things like" a gun at home increases the risk of some in that home dying." You say this because you MUST include sucicide data in your pathetic studies to have any hope of justifing your anti-gun agenda.

No, the study I am referring to does NOT include suicide data.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

There you go again, bringing up a study done by our anti-gun CDC government agency to demonize guns. And OF COURSE it uses suicide data. Hack studies like this one must lump in all data from all the dangerous places in a country to make the study conform to the hypothesis. The data from Wyoming alone proves this theory patently false.

Crime is a funtion of: the people in a given area, their culture and how effectively criminals are dealt with in that area. NOT the number of guns per household.

Any fool can tell you where crime is going to be highest. It will be in urban areas with bad liberal leadership and high numbers of Black and Hispanic gang members running around in it. In Detroit, Michigan, the homocide rate is 48 per 100,000. Crime isn't high because of the guns, it's because of the bad people using them.

Really, is a rational person going to be more afraid of a gun being used against themselves in their homes, or others coming to rob or invade their homes? There are so many other real dangers in life like car accidents and drownings, that accidental firearms deaths are of no significance. Your pet study with the meaningless figure of 1.9 isn't useful. It can't predict real crime threats anywhere in the world.

 

[Spoonman]

Now people like you can only say dishonest things like" a gun at home increases the risk of some in that home dying." You say this because you MUST include sucicide data in your pathetic studies to have any hope of justifing your anti-gun agenda.

No, the study I am referring to does NOT include suicide data.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

There you go again, bringing up a study done by our anti-gun CDC government agency to demonize guns. And OF COURSE it uses suicide data. Hack studies like this one must lump in all data from all the dangerous places in a country to make the study conform to the hypothesis. The data from Wyoming alone proves this theory patently false.

Crime is a funtion of: the people in a given area, their culture and how effectively criminals are dealt with in that area. NOT the number of guns per household.

Any fool can tell you where crime is going to be highest. It will be in urban areas with bad liberal leadership and high numbers of Black and Hispanic gang members running around in it. In Detroit, Michigan, the homocide rate is 48 per 100,000. Crime isn't high because of the guns, it's because of the bad people using them.

Really, is a rational person going to be more afraid of a gun being used against themselves in their homes, or others coming to rob or invade their homes? There are so many other real dangers in life like car accidents and drownings, that accidental firearms deaths are of no significance. Your pet study with the meaningless figure of 1.9 isn't useful. It can't predict real crime threats anywhere in the world.

what this study fails to show is that more houses that have guns have no violence or gun deaths at all. in fact, most guns never are even involed in any crime at all.

The USA has a rapidly expanding number of guns yet it has a decreasing amount of gun violence. that fact alone flies in the face of every argument the anti gun nutters try to throw out there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rabbi, QW -

Would you guys mind sticking to facts and research, rather than just trumpet theories that have no basis in reality?

If you wish to fault a peer-reviewed and published study - explain why and present sources to back your case.

You are the one using a widely disputed study to try and make the point that guns cause people to get beaten to death, deal with the fact that I don't need to post anything to mock a conclusion like that.

 

[Survivalist]

Survivalist -

Perhaps start by acknowledging some of your errors, and then we can move on.

Firstly, do you acknowledge that:

- Iceland has less guns and less homicides than Finland?

- gun ownership correlates with both total homicide rate AND gun-related homicide rate in this case?

I think the figures are fairly clear here - I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

btw. I don't think any of us on any side of this debate really think 15% more guns in society means 15% more homicides. What we are looking for are patterns and trends that take place often over several years. The idea that Finland 50% more guns than Iceland but double the number of homicides does not negate my case - it proves it.

You can only make very limited points, because you are obsessed with limited data, limited studies and limited thinking.

Yes criminals and people wanting to commit suicide CAN use guns if they around. But you can't take one study done in one country they try to extrapolate risk worldwide with it.

I don't see anyone coming to your rescue on this one.

The very fact that crime is the very lowest in Iceland, that has more guns per captia than most countries in the world, proves your theory wrong.

Suicides are going to be a function of the people, their culture and physical environment---not the presence of guns----as gunless Japan, with its high suicide rate proves.

Violent crime is far, far higher in the UK, than it is in Iceland, yet the UK has banned most guns. Your studies need something called "consistency." I see no logical correlation between crime rates in Finland or Iceland based on guns. Just like there is no logical correlation with violent crime in the UK, or all the rapes going on in Sweeden based on guns.

Are you so bewildered by statistics that you think just the presence of one gun homocide in any country means that guns are going to have a statistical impact on crimes there?

Sorry, but you've given me nothing to prove your correlation between guns and crime WORLDWIDE. Here is a study done by some of your Finnish buddies that proves demographics are the main driving force in crime, not guns:

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Skook's source:

Lindsey Christiansen

Stephanie McNaught is a writer for Fusion 360, an advertising agency in Utah that provides SEO and content marketing for Fort Knox.

If I had used an ad hominen attack on the author of your study to show his bias, which would have been justified considering the fact that he publishes studies without releasing the raw data that backs them up, you would have whinged about how the pro gun side can do nothing to refute the facts. When other people link to studies that actually contain the raw data, and meet the rigorous peer review requirements of scientific journals, you resort to claiming they are biased because you don't like the authors professional relationships.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Survivalist -

Perhaps start by acknowledging some of your errors, and then we can move on.

Firstly, do you acknowledge that:

- Iceland has less guns and less homicides than Finland?

- gun ownership correlates with both total homicide rate AND gun-related homicide rate in this case?

I think the figures are fairly clear here - I don't see the point in pretending otherwise.

btw. I don't think any of us on any side of this debate really think 15% more guns in society means 15% more homicides. What we are looking for are patterns and trends that take place often over several years. The idea that Finland 50% more guns than Iceland but double the number of homicides does not negate my case - it proves it.

Are you going to acknowledge that the study you are relying on uses faulty methodology, selective data capture, and that the author did not release the raw data? Or that Kellerman actually had to back down from his initial claims when real researchers went out and did studies using actual numbers from the same sources he claimed to be relying on? Or does the simple fact that you agree with his lies trump the reality that he is full of shit?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Skook's source:

Lindsey Christiansen

Stephanie McNaught is a writer for Fusion 360, an advertising agency in Utah that provides SEO and content marketing for Fort Knox.

If I had used an ad hominen attack on the author of your study to show his bias, which would have been justified considering the fact that he publishes studies without releasing the raw data that backs them up, you would have whinged about how the pro gun side can do nothing to refute the facts. When other people link to studies that actually contain the raw data, and meet the rigorous peer review requirements of scientific journals, you resort to claiming they are biased because you don't like the authors professional relationships.

Interesting.

Saigon is a partisan bigot -- what else do you expect?

 

[Saigon]

I see no logical correlation between crime rates in Finland or Iceland based on guns.

Then you need to look again - and this time without the parisan blinkers on. Let's remember - this is an example YOU suggested.


Of course Finland looks like a slaughterhouse - we have FAR more guns:

Finland 45.7 guns per 100,000

Iceland 30.3 guns per 100,000

The result is:

Finland 3.64 gun-related homicides per 100,000

Iceland 1.57 gun-related homicides per 100,000

We can also see:

Finland 2.2 total homicide rate

Iceland 0.3 total homicide rate


Keep in mind that we can run this test with literally dozens of countries. We can compare the US with Germany, the US with France, the US with Canada, or Finland with Denmark, Finland with Norway and so on and so on - and what we will see with a correlation of well over 90% is that countries with more guns also have more gun-related homicides, and more total homicides. It's a proven, statistical fact, and one that can be demonstrated and proven here quite easily.

Which is why Rabbi, M14 etc will not discuss it sensibly under any circumstances.

 

[bripat9643]

32,000 gun deaths a year in the US. Soon, the number of gun deaths will exceed that of deaths by auto accident.



By 2015 more people will be killed by guns than by traffic accidents, according to a startling chart compiled by Bloomberg Government's Alex Tribou.

Motor vehicle deaths have declined 22 percent since 2005 while gun fatalities — including homicide, suicide and accidents — have steadily risen from a low point in 2000.

The decline of traffic accident fatalities — which coincides with deliberate moves to cut back on drunk driving, increase seatbelt use and enforce car safety standards — and the increase in gun fatalities will lead to a massive change in 2015.

At the current rates, gun deaths should hit around 33,000 annually in 2015 while traffic fatalities should decrease to around 32,000, according to Bloomberg estimates.


Read more: Report: Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths By 2015 - Business Insider

I noticed you used a precise % for the decrease in auto fatalities but used the more vauge term "steadily" to describe the increase in gun violence, where steadily could mean 1/2% a year.

Nice weaseling.

Also, why should improved vehicle safety result in me being denied my 2nd amendment rights?

Gun violence isn't increasing. It's decreasing. The murder rate is about half of what it was in the 1970s.

 

[bripat9643]

Now people like you can only say dishonest things like" a gun at home increases the risk of some in that home dying." You say this because you MUST include sucicide data in your pathetic studies to have any hope of justifing your anti-gun agenda.

No, the study I am referring to does NOT include suicide data.

Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4).

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Your study might not have included suicides, although I believe it does, it lumps in intruders who were chot breaking and entering with the category of "dying from homicide in the home." Furthermore, it does nothing to compensate for the fact the people in high crime neighborhoods tend to buy more guns than people in low crime neighborhoods, so there would be more homicides in those neighborhoods regardless of the presence of guns.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat-

I'm not sure about this particular study, but I did buy a book of the Havrard Research a couple of years ago, and that definitely addressed positive causation i.e. that people in high crime neighbourhoods tend to buy more guns.

I realise that many of our posters here have never seen an academic study and never will, and operate on the assumption that all studies are stupid because they were written by people who can use words like 'causation' in a sentence, but in actual fact any decent academic study is going to address any major factor that we might think of here.

It's worth reading the Harvard material (without blinkers) and actually get an understanding of the issue.

 

[skookerasbil]

BriPat-

I'm not sure about this particular study, but I did buy a book of the Havrard Research a couple of years ago, and that definitely addressed positive causation i.e. that people in high crime neighbourhoods tend to buy more guns.

I realise that many of our posters here have never seen an academic study and never will, and operate on the assumption that all studies are stupid because they were written by people who can use words like 'causation' in a sentence, but in actual fact any decent academic study is going to address any major factor that we might think of here.

It's worth reading the Harvard material (without blinkers) and actually get an understanding of the issue.

OK.....now Im laughing my balls off!!!!



Harvard study completed April 2013 concludes >>>>> more guns = less crimes


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.

Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.


Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?










I fucking love this forum!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[jtpr312]

32,000 gun deaths a year in the US. Soon, the number of gun deaths will exceed that of deaths by auto accident.



By 2015 more people will be killed by guns than by traffic accidents, according to a startling chart compiled by Bloomberg Government's Alex Tribou.

Motor vehicle deaths have declined 22 percent since 2005 while gun fatalities — including homicide, suicide and accidents — have steadily risen from a low point in 2000.

The decline of traffic accident fatalities — which coincides with deliberate moves to cut back on drunk driving, increase seatbelt use and enforce car safety standards — and the increase in gun fatalities will lead to a massive change in 2015.

At the current rates, gun deaths should hit around 33,000 annually in 2015 while traffic fatalities should decrease to around 32,000, according to Bloomberg estimates.


Read more: Report: Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths By 2015 - Business Insider

So what?

 

[jon_berzerk]

BriPat-

I'm not sure about this particular study, but I did buy a book of the Havrard Research a couple of years ago, and that definitely addressed positive causation i.e. that people in high crime neighbourhoods tend to buy more guns.

I realise that many of our posters here have never seen an academic study and never will, and operate on the assumption that all studies are stupid because they were written by people who can use words like 'causation' in a sentence, but in actual fact any decent academic study is going to address any major factor that we might think of here.

It's worth reading the Harvard material (without blinkers) and actually get an understanding of the issue.

OK.....now Im laughing my balls off!!!!



Harvard study completed April 2013 concludes >>>>>


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.

Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.


Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?










I fucking love this forum!!!

siagon is still carrying on with that bs --LOL

 

[skookerasbil]

BriPat-

I'm not sure about this particular study, but I did buy a book of the Havrard Research a couple of years ago, and that definitely addressed positive causation i.e. that people in high crime neighbourhoods tend to buy more guns.

I realise that many of our posters here have never seen an academic study and never will, and operate on the assumption that all studies are stupid because they were written by people who can use words like 'causation' in a sentence, but in actual fact any decent academic study is going to address any major factor that we might think of here.

It's worth reading the Harvard material (without blinkers) and actually get an understanding of the issue.

OK.....now Im laughing my balls off!!!!



Harvard study completed April 2013 concludes >>>>>


Many people believe that owning guns only increases the amount of crime. However, a recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally. In other words, the more guns the less crime. The study showed that nations with strict gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates than those who do not. In fact, the 9 European nations with the lowest gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times that of the nine European nations with the highest gun ownership rate.

Having a society with more guns appears to not only reduce violent crime and keep citizens safe, but also dissuades dangerous criminals from wanting to approach people with guns. According to the study, three out of five polled felons say that they won't mess with an armed victim.


Does Owning Guns Reduce Crime?










I fucking love this forum!!!

siagon is still carrying on with that bs --LOL

indeed.......this message board would somewhat suck without him on it!!

 

[Survivalist]

I see no logical correlation between crime rates in Finland or Iceland based on guns.

Then you need to look again - and this time without the parisan blinkers on. Let's remember - this is an example YOU suggested.


Of course Finland looks like a slaughterhouse - we have FAR more guns:

Finland 45.7 guns per 100,000

Iceland 30.3 guns per 100,000

The result is:

Finland 3.64 gun-related homicides per 100,000

Iceland 1.57 gun-related homicides per 100,000

We can also see:

Finland 2.2 total homicide rate

Iceland 0.3 total homicide rate


Keep in mind that we can run this test with literally dozens of countries. We can compare the US with Germany, the US with France, the US with Canada, or Finland with Denmark, Finland with Norway and so on and so on - and what we will see with a correlation of well over 90% is that countries with more guns also have more gun-related homicides, and more total homicides. It's a proven, statistical fact, and one that can be demonstrated and proven here quite easily.

Which is why Rabbi, M14 etc will not discuss it sensibly under any circumstances.

I'm not blinded by my views. That isn't my problem.

We can only use crime statistics from the most advanced countries where they do detailed studies----and all of those are Western Nations and some in East Asia.

Your are not going to get any worthwhile crime or death figures coming out of most anyplace in Africa or the 3 rd world. One can rightly assume that crime is high in places like Sierra Leone or Liberia where dead bodies are often left to rot where they fall.

Maybe you looked at the UN data on international crime, but you probably didn't. Here it is once again:

http://www.heuni.fi/Satellite?blobt...tion&ssbinary=true&blobheader=application/pdf

If you look at page 14, you can see, from at least one year of reporting, that homocides are lower in Switzerland, Germany, and Norway (that all have vastly more firearms) than the UK and Beligum (that have very few).

You can also look at the list of firearms per capita here:
Number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a more broad sample:

Switzerland 45.7/100
Finland 45.3
Norway 31.2
France 31.3
Iceland 30.3
Belgium 17.2
Italy 11.9
England 6.2

Looking at the violent crime rates of many of these:

Switzerland 1.1/100,000
Finland 6.6
Norway 4.6
France 4.1
Iceland almost nothing
Belgium 5.8
Italy 1.3
England 13.4
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8128/screenhunter6gm6.jpg

here is another bit of info:



If you look at the top 3 on my short list you see 3 of the countries in Europe that have more guns, but on average, much less crime than the three on the list with the fewest.

SO WHAT IS YOUR MAGIC NUMBER that can be used in EVERY country with consistant results that shows having more guns = more violent crimes and/or homocides?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Strange.

Can anyone explain to me why [MENTION=37000]Saigon[/MENTION] hasn't responded to my post explaining why the study he thinks of as definitive isn't? Does he not want to defend his position that owning guns causes people to get beat to death?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strange.

Can anyone explain to me why [MENTION=37000]Saigon[/MENTION] hasn't responded to my post explaining why the study he thinks of as definitive isn't? Does he not want to defend his position that owning guns causes people to get beat to death?

Simple"
Saigon is a partisan bigot who only serves to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Saigon]

Strange.

Can anyone explain to me why [MENTION=37000]Saigon[/MENTION] hasn't responded to my post explaining why the study he thinks of as definitive isn't? Does he not want to defend his position that owning guns causes people to get beat to death?

Because your comments were an obvious red herring, just designed to avoid the real topic. I don't think the study is "definitive", I think it isone of many very good studies that prove beyond any rational doubt that guns in homes increase the risk to people living in that home. This is something we all know to be true, though you may pretend to think otherwise.

Post something sensible, and I'll respond to it.