10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Study takes new look at gun access and risk of homicide, suicide

People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has concluded.

Though men and women with firearm access were about equally likely to take their own lives with a gun, the latest research turned up a gender gap when it came to homicide. Compared with all adults without access to a gun, men with firearm access were 29% more likely to die in a gun-related homicide. But the analysis found that a woman who had a gun in or available to her household was close to three times likelier to die by homicide.

latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#ixzz2zWLQCTMl

Anybody want to dispute the above statistics?
 
Robert_Sock said:
Study takes new look at gun access and risk of homicide, suicide

People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has concluded.

Though men and women with firearm access were about equally likely to take their own lives with a gun, the latest research turned up a gender gap when it came to homicide. Compared with all adults without access to a gun, men with firearm access were 29% more likely to die in a gun-related homicide. But the analysis found that a woman who had a gun in or available to her household was close to three times likelier to die by homicide.

latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#ixzz2zWLQCTMl

Anybody want to dispute the above statistics?
Click to expand...
It depends, what are you trying to claim with that statistic. If you are claiming that women ( or people in general) who live in high crime areas are more likely to own a gun for protection, I certainly would not dispute that.
 
Brendan said:
It depends, what are you trying to claim with that statistic. If you are claiming that women ( or people in general) who live in high crime areas are more likely to own a gun for protection, I certainly would not dispute that.
Click to expand...
No, the study is suggesting that owning a gun, or having access to one, has plenty of potential negative consequences that many gun owners fail to consider, and that these potential negative consequences are much higher than any potential positive consequences.

LOVE! ❤️
 
LongingSoul said:
But I can understand that a government could ‘become tyrannical’ in a dictatorship or an absolute monarchy or even in early democracy when the right to vote was limited to wealthy white males. Those are all threats to the universal concept of the ‘common good’, but nowadays, the government* is *the people. It’s unrealistice to think that one faction could mobilize the entire military against ‘the people’. .
Click to expand...
Agree with all…except the last part. One reason there has never been a military coup in America is that we do not swear allegiance to a politician, but we swear to defend and uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Some of our political leaders today, like Harry Reid, are throwing around the term “domestic terrorists” all too freely (which is ironic when you consider our current President started his career in the front room of an ACTUAL domestic terrorist who bombed the pentagon and NYPD stations). If this trend continues, I could see broad classes of people being classified as “terrorists” and subject to military action. I’m not saying this is happening, but I can see it potentially coming.

And one more point on this part of your thought…have you ever heard of the “tyranny of the people”? The U.S. was NOT supposed to be a Democracy, but a Republic.
LongingSoul said:
Now it seems that the constitution has detached from that universal concept of common good and stands as an unquestionable ‘divine’ standard that can never be examined for its effect on the society it is supposed to protect.
Click to expand...
I personally believe God had a big impact in the drafting of our Constitution, including for the way it included ways for it to be continually examined. We can add, and sometimes remove amendments, and it is continually being interpreted “for its effect on the society it is supposed to protect.” For example the supreme court carefully examined the Constitution recently for the Heller case, and found that the second amendment clearly means the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Thank you! By how much does owning a gun increase your probability of gun violence within your own household compared to using a gun to save someone’s life from a criminal?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
I’m not sure, but people should be able to take that risk.

For example, I own two pipe wrenches. That raises the risk of me smashing my knuckles installing my well pump (like I did yesterday)…but my well is now installed and watering my yard.

Guns are tools. They can hurt people, and they can help people.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
That explains a lot. Operator’s have a term for guys like you - REMF. I believe there was a movie that explains what that means…basically a vulgar term for a guy who sits in a nice cozy office (like at the Pentagon) sending emails all day telling politicians that they have all of the answers, when in reality he doesn’t know squat.

REMF’s don’t hesitate to wear their reserve uniform to events for the free meals, receive the accolades for being a “hero”, and receive the military discount at Lowes. They will even announce, repeatedly, that “they served”, or “they wore the uniform” on internet discussion boards. Yet when they go for their VA physical the only injuries they can list on the form is excessive paper cuts, and possibly carpal tunnel disease due to all of the emails they have typed.

REMF’s have never slept (or, more accurately put, never NOT slept) in the field. Nor have they ever actually put themselves, or their careers on the line. This is easy to do when your operating area is an email inbox, and any decision you need to make can always be bumped up to your next line REMF. They have the luxury of waking up in their own bed every morning, getting warm coffee from Starbucks on the way to the office, being a few minutes late to work because traffic was just horrible, taking an extra 15 minutes at lunch because service was slow, and then heading out of the office 30 minutes late because of their kid’s orthodontist appointment.

Operator’s on the other hand rarely feel comfortable bragging about their service, because they know too many people who “really” earned those accolades…by laying down their life for their nation. When they go to the VA it isn’t for papercuts or carpel tunnel, it is because they are missing an extremity, or their nightmares are keeping them awake, or their neck or back is spasming from the repeated pounding they received from the aircraft landings.

Operator’s understand exactly how precious it is to go to sleep, and wake up, in their own bed next to their supporting wives…because they have spend HUNDREDS of nights away from their families, and their own beds. They may be hot-racking on a ship, or they may be sleeping in a duty room, or maybe in a tank, or a tent, or on the open ground…but they are not in their own bed, next to their wife. A REMF calls this “camping”, an operator calls this his job.

An operator smells coffee in the morning and thinks about how he can get it to his men. A REMF just thinks about whether he has enough cream to go with it. If an operator is “late to work”, it may very likely mean that they caused someone they know to become dead.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your service. I have never “worn the uniform”, but I DO know what a REMF is; and more importantly, I know WHO a REMF is at heart.

PEOPLE have changed. SOCIETY has changed. As I said in a previous post; it seems that as the years have gone by, it has been HARDER to get guns - yet gun crime has INCREASED.

Why is gun crime escalating if there are more restrictions on gun-ownership? Can ANYONE tell me that?
 
LongingSoul said:
… It’s authority is god given but the laws and policies are concerned primarily with promoting the common good of all…

It is misdirected to base your concept of evil on government policy and to think that this is the enemy that needs to be defeated.
Click to expand...
LongingSoul - I think you have a much different opinion on where God gave authority. Our founding father’s clearly thought that our INDIVIDUAL rights were God given, and the authority of government comes FROM the people.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that government is evil. However when government has too much authority or control over people’s lives then the corruption begins.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Thank you! By how much does owning a gun increase your probability of gun violence within your own household compared to using a gun to save someone’s life from a criminal?

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Not much. I know how to take care of my tools, and my kids know how to use them/care for them as well.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Study takes new look at gun access and risk of homicide, suicide

People who have ready access to a firearm are almost twice as likely to be killed and three times likelier to commit suicide than those without a gun available in the home or from a neighbor or friend, a new study has concluded.

Though men and women with firearm access were about equally likely to take their own lives with a gun, the latest research turned up a gender gap when it came to homicide. Compared with all adults without access to a gun, men with firearm access were 29% more likely to die in a gun-related homicide. But the analysis found that a woman who had a gun in or available to her household was close to three times likelier to die by homicide.

latimes.com/science/la-sci-guns-20140121,0,1179362.story#ixzz2zWLQCTMl

Anybody want to dispute the above statistics?
Click to expand...
Again, this is a statistical farce due to selection bias. Furthermore, it is a meta-analysis and is not a real “study”.

It comes down to the old adage “Statistics lie, and liars use statistics” to say whatever they want them to say.
 
Boatswain2PA said:
**Again, this is a statistical farce due to selection bias. Furthermore, it is a meta-analysis and is not a real “study”.
**
It comes down to the old adage “Statistics lie, and liars use statistics” to say whatever they want them to say.
Click to expand...
Anything to back up your outrageous contentions? :rolleyes:
 
Robert_Sock said:
No, the study is suggesting that owning a gun, or having access to one, has plenty of potential negative consequences that many gun owners fail to consider, and that these potential negative consequences are much higher than any potential positive consequences.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Based off of what you stated, you cannot draw that conclusion. There is insufficient information. For example, are people who are most under threat of homicide, such as those who live or work in high crime areas, or who work in high threat employment, such as police or security guards, more likely to own guns.
 
Brendan said:
Based off of what you stated, you cannot draw that conclusion. There is insufficient information. For example, are people who are most under threat of homicide, such as those who live or work in high crime areas, or who work in high threat employment, such as police or security guards, more likely to own guns.
Click to expand...
Try this study then.

aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. 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). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). 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.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Brendan said:
Based off of what you stated, you cannot draw that conclusion. There is insufficient information. For example, are people who are most under threat of homicide, such as those who live or work in high crime areas, or who work in high threat employment, such as police or security guards, more likely to own guns.
Click to expand...
Exactly…what scientists call “selection bias”.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Try this study then.

aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. 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). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). 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.
Click to expand...
Statistical problems here include it being a retrospective analysis, heavy selection bias, and, of course, publication bias.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Try this study then.
Click to expand...
Were the guns legally owned? Were the people who died engaged in illegal activity, or lived with someone who was engaged in illegal activity or had a history of criminal activity

Was the area they lived in high crime.

Do you not think that those factors would be factors?

In that study, homicide victims were overrepresented in blacks, while suicide was overrepresented in whites. So it would seem that being black is a bigger factor than gun ownership in regards to gun fatalities. Why do you feel that is the case?
 
Brendan said:
Were the guns legally owned? Were the people who died engaged in illegal activity, or lived with someone who was engaged in illegal activity or had a history of criminal activity

Was the area they lived in high crime.

Do you not think that those factors would be factors?

In that study, homicide victims were overrepresented in blacks, while suicide was overrepresented in whites. So it would seem that being black is a bigger factor than gun ownership in regards to gun fatalities. Why do you feel that is the case?
Click to expand...
It’s a nationally representative sample, so there’s a built in control for things like illegal activities and areas of high crime rate. Moreover it is stated that: “All data were weighted to account for unequal selection probabilities and nonresponse and were poststratified to produce national estimates.” This controls for any possible selection bias. Oversample are only used when analyzing by race, in order to guarantee adequate sample size.

I have a PhD in research psychology, so I’m an expert when it comes to these types of studies.

LOVE! ❤️
 
Robert_Sock said:
It’s a nationally representative sample, so there’s a built in control for things like illegal activities and areas of high crime rate. Moreover it is stated that: “All data were weighted to account for unequal selection probabilities and nonresponse and were poststratified to produce national estimates.” This controls for any possible selection bias. Oversample are only used when analyzing by race, in order to guarantee adequate sample size.

I have a PhD in research psychology, so I’m an expert when it comes to these types of studies.

LOVE! ❤️
Click to expand...
Psychologists and Sociologists are not experts in statistical analysis, data analysis, or research methods. Economists are the experts in those areas.

How much background do you have in math?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top