Stop the Violence, Save the Children

[SecularMotion]

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 17, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- With over 280 million guns in civilian hands, the terrible truth is that there is no place to hide from gun violence. Children and teens are not safe from gun violence at school, at home, or anywhere else in America. With children in the home we should properly store firearms and ammunition. A cable-style gun locking device and preventing easy accessibility from children is a safe solution.

It is vital that we recognize the risk to children of unsupervised access to guns and understand that there are common sense steps that we must take to protect our children.

Street art murals, "Stop the Violence, Save the Children" by Artist Mike McNeilly were created back in 1992 after the L.A. Riots, and the release of the CDC (Center for Disease Control) statistics showing thousands of children's deaths from guns. The murals were imaged from Los Angeles, New York as well as the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. "We need to protect our children by making sure that guns in the home are stored securely and safely," states artist Mike McNeilly. "But responsibility to protect children does not end just there. As a people, we can all take steps now to keep our children safe from guns. A new series of "Stop the Violence, Save the Children" street murals are being created by artist Mike McNeilly, to help raise awareness for gun safety.

Children and teens killed by firearms are more likely to be boys (90 percent). Boys ages 15 to 19 are almost 10 times as likely as girls that age to commit suicide with a firearm.


http://www.bradenton.com/2012/02/17/3883835/stop-the-violence-save-the-children.html#storylink=cpy

[slackmaster]

1. There should be a federal income tax incentive for people who buy safe gun storage devices

Safe storage isn't just a good idea, it's already the law in the state of California.

[Johnny Rico]

3. What's the point of "safely storing" a home defense gun?

While I certainly agree with storing most of one's firearms in a safe, it kind of defeats the purpose if my home defense gun of choice (currently a Mossberg 590A1) is locked away.

[slackmaster]

4. You safely store firearms that are not presently deployed for self-defense

For ones that are deployed, you keep control over them.

[ileus]

23. That's why it's so important to alway carry your weapon when at home.

Unless you're in the shower you firearm should always be attached to your person. For the safety of the family....

I'll get kids friends ask me from time to time "Why are you carrying your gun?" I always reply "Safety first, accidents later."

It's my personal opinion that if my PSD isn't on my person it should be locked up. And I either carry it with me, or it's locked up...I'm not going to risk my kids or the dozens of kids that end up at my house lives by leaving one of my lifesaving devices out where it can fall into the wrong hands.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. Safe storage is more likely to help you than hurt you.

Look, when I was single, I kept my pistol loaded in my nightstand. Even after I got married I did. But once I had kids, I bought a gun safe.

I don't particularly like having my self-defense means locked away in case of emergency, but I am certain that where I live I am far, far more likely to have a problem with children playing with my firearms than I am to be the victim of a crime. And I say this even though someone came into my back yard last summer and tried to hot-wire my garden tractor to steal it. I don't leave the key in it because I'm afraid of my kids playing on it / with it an starting it up and getting hurt. So someone cut up the wiring harness trying to hot-wire it. In my fenced-in back yard, in my nice subdivision.

But even with that, I remember me playing with my dad's guns when I was a kid. I would blow the shit out of model airplanes and targets - whatever shooting I thought I could get away with without my dad missing the ammo. Now fortunately I was trained from a child in gun safety so all of my "playing" was very safe as I was always aware of my backstop and proper firearm handling. But I was playing with my dad's guns, nonetheless.

Already I went to take one of my guns out of my gun safe a week or so ago and discovered the keyhole jammed with something - my 3-year-old boy was very sheepish about it (and had been asking about daddy's "real guns" in the gun safe) so I'm pretty sure my boy crammed something in the keyhole trying to get at the guns. (As an aside I'm glad I noticed this and was able to dig the shit out of the lock before an emergency happened).

If you've got kids in your house, even occasionally, you would be wise to secure your firearms. Now obviously it depends on where you live and your personal situation. But I'm betting most of us live in places where we are not very likely to be victims of crime. You make your own choices, of course, but I don't want to be "that guy" who ends up in the news because a brother shot his sister or a neighbor kid while they were playing with daddy's gun.

[Johnny Rico]

64. I think you make some valid points about kids & guns.

In my case, I haven't had a single child in my house for the last 15 years, so it's not an issue. If I did have children (shudder) I would have to consider "child-proofing" my home defense gun until the child in question was old enough to handle firearms safely.

[gejohnston]

2. I'm all for promoting gun safety

but violence and suicide are totally different issues.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. Worth Repeating

Children and teens killed by firearms are more likely to be boys (90 percent). Boys ages 15 to 19 are almost 10 times as likely as girls that age to commit suicide with a firearm.

WOW.

[gejohnston]

7. but that does not mean

that not having access to a firearm will prevent suicides. How many of those boys were gang members shooting each other.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. True-False

First statement true.

Second statement about murder---not suicide.

[Glassunion]

9. The data is misleading through ommission

Regardless of method, boys commit suicide 10 times more than girls.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Another Omission

Boys are ten times more likely to play with guns.

[Glassunion]

13. Do you have data to support that?

Even if you could personally make every gun in the United States disappear, the rates would remain the same. Among Native American's the firearm is not the primary method of suicide. In fact, the firearm is only the primary choice of white and black children and that is by a slim margin(roughly 50-54%). The other demographics use other methods as their primary choice.


Suicide is a failing of our health care and support systems. Among high school students in the United States in 2007, 18.7% of females and 10.3% of males considered suicide. That is a very scary number to me.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. OK

Glad you have the answers. I don't.

If your point is that guns are the primary method of suicide for black and white children.......ok.

[Glassunion]

20. Not my point at all.

Regardless of method, the rates and quantities of suicides will remain the same if you removed firearms from the picture.

This has been shown to be true in countries with very low, to non existent firearm ownership.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Got It

Youth suicides from guns would not decline if youth access to guns was less or supervision was better?

[gejohnston]

22. not quite

youth suicides would not decline. Suicide by gun may decline, but other means would make up the difference. Concentrating on a means is simply a diversion from the real issue.

Drinking battery acid or hanging is just as tragic.

[DanTex]

24. Do you have data to support that?

Even if you could personally make every gun in the United States disappear, the rates would remain the same.

This issue has been studied extensively, and what you are claiming is very far from the truth. Certainly, some victims of gun suicide would find a way to end their lives even if a gun were not available. But many would not -- suicidal impulses are often momentary, and the access to easy and lethal means such as a gun can make the difference between life and death. So you are quite mistaken in claiming that reducing gun availability would not reduce suicide rates.

As a quick illustration, this chart compares high-gun ownership and low-gun ownership states in terms of suicide by gun and by other means. As you can see, the high-gun states have far more gun suicides, while the non-gun suicide rates are about the same.


Of course, this is just one statistic. Like I said, there is a lot of research into suicide and the significance of access to lethal means. If you are interested, here is a rough overview of some of it.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

[gejohnston]

25. funders and the people who work there

matter too. Ever have anything that is peer reviewed and does not have a conflict of interest? I find the press PR for Hemenway interesting, how much of this stuff is really peer reviewed?

The Means Matter Campaign is funded by The Joyce Foundation and the David Bohnett Foundation.

http://www.bohnettfoundation.org/

[DanTex]

26. So, can you refute the facts, or is whining about "anti-gun bias" your only move?

Yes, the claims made on the HSPH site are backed by extensive bibliographies of peer reviewed studies, some of which are from Harvard (which I know you hate), but most of them are by other scholars at other universities.

The general overviews intended for non-expert audiences are not peer reviewed, but all of the facts are backed by appropriate citations, for example, here's a partial bibliography from one part of the Means Matter site:

Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides: a case-control study. JAMA. 1991; 266:2989-2995.

Brent DA, Baugher M, Bridge J, Chen T, Chiappetta L. Age- and sex-related risk factors for adolescent suicide. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1999; 38(12):1497-505.

Miller M, Lippmann SJ, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States. J Trauma. 2007 Apr;62(4):1029-34.

Bennewith O, Gunnell D, Kapur N, et. al. Suicide by hanging. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2005;186:260-1.

Wang JL. Rural-urban differences in the prevalence of major depression and associated impairment. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2004 Jan;39(1):19-25.

Ilgen MA, Zivin K, McCammon RJ, Valenstein M. Mental illness, previous suicidality, and access to guns in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2008 Feb;59(2):198-200.

[gejohnston]

27. I have nothing against Harvard

I only question the integrity of some of HSPH's research given their dependence on some of their funding.
I will as soon as I can find anything relevant about them, I have to find and read the papers involved. "high gun ownership counties and states" are also the most rural as in least likely to have adequate public health, including mental health because they lack the tax base to fund such things on a local level. Could that have something to do with it? Was that controlled for, if so how?

But as usual, you make false assumptions and make broad brush characterizations based on two dimensional stereotypes about things and people you know nothing about. That is not exactly characteristic of open mindedness or one interested in open inquiry.

Wow, I can give a list of citations too. I think it would be interesting to read some of them and see how relevant they are to the information in the site. The PR for Hemenway is undignified, it smacks more like K Tell records or Ronco than Harvard.

[DanTex]

29. So, can you refute the facts, or is whining about "anti-gun bias" your only move?

I wonder if you really understand how peer review, scientific funding, and all that actually works. The studies published by HSPS are indeed published in peer-reviewed journals, not in "house organs". Journals like JAMA, NEJM, etc.

The webpage I linked to is (obviously) not a peer-reviewed article, it is an overview intended for a general audience, but the facts and statistics are drawn from peer-reviewed studies. Which is why I'll ask again, can you actually refute any of the facts?

Because otherwise, it's very unlikely that anyone who is not already fully hooked on NRA propaganda is going to listen to you. To sane people, the idea that a bunch of top universities and scientific journals have been corrupted by big money from anti-gun activists is absurd -- you might as well argue that the link between smoking and lung cancer is just a big conspiracy by the American Cancer Society which, after all, like the "evil" David Bohnett foundation, is a private charity organization which funds both research and advocacy. In fact, the David Bohnett foundation actually has given funding the American Cancer Society! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

[gejohnston]

32. I'll read them first

I wonder if you really understand how peer review, scientific funding, and all that actually works. The studies published by HSPS are indeed published in peer-reviewed journals, not in "house organs". Journals like JAMA, NEJM, etc.

I often wonder if you do. Very few of your posts are reasoned or rational. They are often filled with patronizing, name calling, and appeals to authority. Any academic that disagrees with your view is personally attack with no basis. JAMA et al does not know anything about criminology, therefore is not relevant.

The webpage I linked to is (obviously) not a peer-reviewed article, it is an overview intended for a general audience, but the facts and statistics are drawn from peer-reviewed studies. Which is why I'll ask again, can you actually refute any of the facts?

I get that, but I also notice that Joyce funded results don't seem to match their conclusions.

To sane people, the idea that a bunch of top universities and scientific journals have been corrupted by big money from anti-gun activists is absurd -- you might as well argue that the link between smoking and lung cancer is just a big conspiracy by the American Cancer Society

None of them are criminology journals. Oh yeah, that is for hacks like Kleck, Tribe, Marvin who can only get jobs at state universities.

In fact, the David Bohnett foundation actually has given funding the American Cancer Society! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

See first paragraph.

[DanTex]

33. Criminology? We're talking about suicide here... LOL!

I think you got you're talking points mixed up. What does criminology have to do with suicide?

I get that, but I also notice that Joyce funded results don't seem to match their conclusions.

You realize that nobody except for NRA junkies shares this conspiratorial view of Joyce. You see, none of the criticisms of Joyce-funded research ever stick, at least not in the mind of actual scientists. The studies they fund are published in top journals, and there are also plenty of studies funded by the NIH or CDC or other sources that have similar findings. The Joyce fantasy of yours is just that.

The real problem is not with Joyce or David Bohnett, the problem you have is that the results of the majority of peer-reviewed studies don't match your conclusions. It's also got nothing to do with criminology, because the majority of mainstream criminologists do not find the studies by your pro-gun contrarian heros to be credible. The fact that you've only ever heard of the few criminologists that come down on the pro-gun side doesn't mean that they represent the entire field.

[gejohnston]

34. speaking of generalities

Name the actual scientists, not counting the ones that get their funding from them.

Name these mainstream criminologists besides Cook.

I doubt most criminologists really take an interest either way. Your economists don't represent the criminology field at all.
Still, the most gun rich parts of the US, or any other country, are largely rural. Rural access to mental health services suck. That is probably a larger factor than guns.

[DanTex]

35. You probably wouldn't take my word for it, but maybe you'll take Gary Kleck's

The reality, however, is that academic gun control believers greatly outnumber skeptics. Consider, for example, the members of the Criminology Advisory Board of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, which published Hemenway’s attack on the NSDS. The Board includes such pro-control luminaries as Richard Block, Alfred Blumstein, Roland Chilton, Philip Cook, Jeffrey Fagan, Rosemary Gartner, John Hagan, Richard McCleary, Steven Messner, Daniel S. Nagin, Lawrence Sherman, Wesley Skogan, and Marvin Wolfgang, but does not include even one scholar who has publicly expressed skepticism about gun control (see p. vii of the Summer 1997 issue)

Off the top of my head, other criminologists I can think of that have done research on gun violence: Franklin Zimring, Jens Ludwig, Anthony Braga, David McDowall, Colin Loftin, Brian Wiersema, Martin Killias.

As far as "my economists", this game you want to play where you carve away everyone whose research doesn't agree with your opinion for arbitrary reasons (e.g. Joyce funding, their PhD says "economics" rather than "sociology", their last name doesn't start with "K" and has more than five letters) is silly. If you were actually interested in the truth, you would take into account all of the evidence, rather than making excuses to ignore most of it in order to make it appear like Kleck's studies are all that there is.

On the rurality issue, this is discussed at the HSPS site:

When two factors are associated, the relationship may be causal (one of the factors causes, or helps to cause, the other) or they may both be related to a third factor that plays a causal role. For example, suicide rates are higher in rural areas in the U.S. Firearm ownership is also higher in rural areas. Perhaps it is not the presence of firearms, per se, but something about rural life that leads to greater depression and suicidality, or, alternately, perhaps there is a character trait (such as self-reliance and an inclination to "go it alone&quot that may be associated both with firearm ownership and suicide and it is this trait, not the presence of the gun, that leads to the association.

The evidence isn't strong for either of these hypotheses. Most studies of rurality and depression (not all, but most) have found that people in rural areas do not have higher rates of depression than those in urban areas (e.g., Wang 2004). In addition, data from the National Comorbidity Study indicate that people living in homes with guns are about as likely as those living in homes without guns to suffer from depression, substance use problems, and suicidal thoughts (Ilgin 2008).

More studies - Rural-urban differences in depression and suicidality

On top of that, I'll point out that the rurality critique would only be applicable to the ecological studies. The link between gun ownership also shows up at the individual level in case-control studies, which find that individuals in gun-owning households are more likely to commit suicide, despite the fact that they are not more likely to have depression or suicidal thoughts.

In the end, in order to believe that gun availability doesn't affect suicide rates, you have to believe that everyone who commits suicide with a gun is so committed to suicide that they would find another means if a gun were not available, and that if this other means failed (since guns are more lethal than other means) that they would keep attempting suicide until they completed. All of this goes against what mental health experts have learned about suicide: suicidal thoughts are often fleeting, and most people who survive a suicide attempt don't actually end up dying by suicide.

[ellisonz]

36. Damn you and your logic!

Damn you!

[gejohnston]

42. you forgot the link, complete with context

First, let's put the entire paper so readers see it in context. It is important to note the difference between personal opinion and what the science says. Kleck is also pro control, not a prohibitionist. What it amounts to is Kleck calling out Hemenway for a bullshit critique based largely on baseless speculation and an unfounded claim of dishonesty. Please spare me the "double blind study" bs, Hemenway did not do one.

Since when was being in a minority become way out in left field? If he was, which is what you implied, would the American Society of Criminology award him the Michael J. Hindelang Award for that same work?

To quote Marvin Wolfgang
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1144039

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.

Interesting speculation on the reasons rural areas have higher suicide rates. If they were to look a little harder they would find the same is true in Austrailia and Japan (granted, rural Australians have more access to firearms than urban Austrailians) . Rural Japanese do not.

which find that individuals in gun-owning households are more likely to commit suicide, despite the fact that they are not more likely to have depression or suicidal thoughts.

So they are saying the trigger pulls the finger? Christine was a car in a movie, not a gun in a documentary. How many of these studies actually say that? Have to go through them once I find free copies.

In the end, in order to believe that gun availability doesn't affect suicide rates, you have to believe that everyone who commits suicide with a gun is so committed to suicide that they would find another means if a gun were not available, and that if this other means failed (since guns are more lethal than other means) that they would keep attempting suicide until they completed. All of this goes against what mental health experts have learned about suicide: suicidal thoughts are often fleeting, and most people who survive a suicide attempt don't actually end up dying by suicide.

Actually it is common sense, and yes they would hang themselves. Drinking battery acid (I knew a kid that did, even with guns in the home), hanging, jumping in front of a train are no less lethal. One more thing, one with simply fleeting thoughts are not actually acting on them.

[DanTex]

44. Speaking of context...

...I wonder why you only quoted that one paragraph of Wolfgang's, and not his further remarks. He already mentions that he would like to hear the opinions of Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook -- this is because Zimring and Cook are perhaps the two top criminologists in the area of gun violence. You want to know what he said after no doubt speaking to Zimring, Cook, and others?

For those who have not read Volume 86, Number 1 of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology on Guns and Violence Symposium, I would like to make clear that I had been asked to write only a commentary, not an original research article. I focused my commentary on an article titled Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

...

The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6700/is_n2_86/ai_n28669072/

Gee, why in the world might you omit that? LOL! Could it be that you're weren't aware of it? Ummm, not unless you forgot what happened last time you tried to play the "Wolfgang card". I wonder why can't you just admit that the majority of mainstream criminologists disagree with Kleck, or as Kleck himself put is "the reality ... is that academic gun control believers greatly outnumber skeptics". Why do you have to pretend that he somehow represents the mainstream view?

As for the rest, we are back to the usual "gejohnston vs the scientific community". Again, I'm sure some NRA junkies might share your "common sense", but it's pretty obvious to anyone with a remotely scientific outlook that what you are saying is completely add odds with all of the available evidence. And this, I think, is one of the reasons that the vast majority of hardcore pro-gunners are conservatives. It takes a certain mentality to consistently ignore scientific evidence in order to accommodate one's political views, and this is a mentality I associate with the right wing.

[gejohnston]

46. in context

at least I added the link, but it also applies to all research including those with smaller samples, including Hemenway's. Kleck's sample size was larger than NCVS of that time. So, your point is not valid. Yes I read it, and was certainly aware of it and was included in the link I provided for all to read. You on the other hand, did not.
Or perhaps Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook agree with him personally? Ask him.

Disagree with Kleck personally, but could not find fault with his methods, that is the operative issue. Again, your point is not really valid. Kleck is pro control. Zimring, Cook, and Wolfgang are prohibitionists. Even then, are you saying the majority is right?

The last paragraph is more of your usual patronizing nonsense and personal attacks. That is when I know you have nothing else, because that is your default position. That is why the mods deleted half to most of your posts in DU2. Do you have something of substance to say? Like the studies cited actually back up the assumptions made? Think about it, someone with a fleeting thought will not have the thought long enough to put a rope over the rafters, slash their jugular with a paring knife etc, but would last long enough to go to another room, unlock a gun cabinet, load it, and fire. I am betting that the studies really don't say that.

[DanTex]

51. Hey yo I did some things, but that's the old me

I can always tell when you're running out of talking points, because then you start attacking me over some posts I had deleted six months ago on DU2. LOL.

And it really must be about that time. Because I have no idea why you would make a claim like this:

Kleck's sample size was larger than NCVS of that time.

Umm, Kleck's sample size was around 5,000, while NCVS was around 50,000 (yes, back at the time). Don't you think it would help your case if you were right about something once in a while?

NCVS:

The National Crime Victimization Survey is a multistage probability sample of 59000 housing units in the United States. It is conducted by the US Bureau of the Census for the US Bureau of Justice Statistics. Its primary use is to estimate the incidence of crime in the nation.2'

Kleck:

While all Rs reporting a DGU were given the full interview, only a one-third random sample of Rs not reporting a DGU were interviewed. The rest were simply thanked for their help. This procedure helped keep interviewing costs down. In the end, there were 222 completed interviews with Rs reporting DGUs, another 1,610 Rs not reporting a DGU but going through the full interview by answering questions other than those pertaining to details of the DGUs. There were a total of 1,832 cases with the full interview. An additional 3,145 Rs answered only enough questions to establish that no one in their household had experienced a DGU against a human in the previous five years (unweighted totals). These procedures effectively under-sampled for non-DGU Rs or, equivalently, over sampled for DGU-involved Rs. Data were also weighted to account for this over sampling.

[gejohnston]

52. My bad, slight typo

I was thinking of Cook and Ludwig, used a sample smaller than Kleck's, but came up with about 1.5 million. I doubt any of these studies are flawless, some are better than others. All of them are outdated. What would be interesting would be a series of studies done today using each of the same methods.

I can always tell when you're running out of talking points, because then you start attacking me over some posts I had deleted six months ago on DU2.

ummmm don't think so, but you are improving. I can't help it if that was your SOP. You do relapse at times. When you relapse, I feel obligated to bring you back. Not an attack, but simply pointing out tiresome dogmatic insults.

[DanTex]

53. Typo. LOL!

Yes, I can see how easy it is to type "larger" when you mean "smaller". The keys are just so close to each other!

[gejohnston]

54. mind was otherwise occupied

I was actually thinking of CL. That is what I wrote, so are you relapsing?

[DanTex]

55. But of course you were!

So, looks like this "you had posts deleted six months ago" is going to be your new go-to talking point when you are caught in a losing argument. And I can see the appeal!

It used to be "Kleck! Kleck! Kleck!" but that one's growing old, and besides, it was always weird that you would bring up Kleck but then knew almost nothing about what his research actually said. But attacking me personally doesn't require understanding any of the substantive points of the debate...

[gejohnston]

56. If you say so,

but you are projecting and really growing tiresome. Was it my misunderstanding or your misunderstanding? Sorry, don't expect me to automatically assume that you are some great academic god, or even take your word for it. When asked to explain something in your own words and in layman's terms, you did not respond. If you can't explain it, you don't know it any better than rest of us.

But attacking me personally doesn't require understanding any of the substantive points of the debate...

talking to the mirror?
The same could be said of broad brushed rants about climate science denial. When have I personally attack you? I have responded you your patronizing BS and pointed them out, but I would not define that as a personal attack. Sounds like your new talking point will go from "you disagree only because you are too stupid to understand" (which was your SOP) to whining about fictitious personal attacks.

[DanTex]

57. Did you ask me to explain something in my own words and I didn't respond?

Hmmm... are you just making stuff up again?

[gejohnston]

58. do you selectively read or just making stuff up again?

and what does this have to do with saving the children?
Actually, I have. Now you are falsely accusing me of lying. Go figure.

[DanTex]

59. "When asked to explain something in your own words and in layman's terms, you did not respond."

As far as saving the children, a few posts back we were discussing the extensive academic research that shows that firearm availability is a significant factor contributing to suicide rates, particularly among young people, how people in gun owning households are at higher risk of suicide, and how regions with higher rates of gun ownership have higher suicide rates, even after adjusting for wealth, urban/rural, and other factors.

And then brought up your "criminology" talking point (which was a bit weird), and a few posts later you brought the "posts deleted on DU2" talking point (even weirder), and just now you accused me of being asked to explain something in my own words and not responding, and now in this last post you are apparently denying that you accused me of being asked to explain something in my own words and not responding (by now you've lost me completely).

[gejohnston]

60. what?

and a few posts later you brought the "posts deleted on DU2" talking point (even weirder)

simply responding to a personal attack
Faux confusion is not amusing.

and just now you accused me of being asked to explain something in my own words and not responding, and now in this last post you are apparently denying that you accused me of being asked to explain something in my own words and not responding (by now you've lost me completely).

different conversation entirely on separate days. Point was that you would regurgitate some claim made by (Hemenway for example) without putting it in your own words or why you think it is relevant. Found now?
Can you answer this (while I find free copies of these studies) why are gun owning households at higher risk of suicide?
Are they saying depressed people tend to own guns more than non depressed people? Are they saying the "trigger pulls the finger" regardless of mental health history?
If the first, how did they get around privacy laws?
If the second, that has more interesting questions.

Is that too weird for you? Or are you going back to the "you must be an anti-intellectual creationist for questioning their wisdom" talking point?
This seems personal to you for some reason.

[DanTex]

61. For the nth time...

The reason that gun ownership increases suicide risk is that suicide is often not a carefully planned act but an impulsive one. This means that access to easy and lethal means of suicide can mean the difference between an actual suicide and a suicidal thought that is not acted upon. Also, not all means of suicide are equally lethal, so access to an especially lethal means (e.g. a gun) can mean the difference between a suicide attempt and an actual suicide. And since most people who attempt suicide but survive do not go on to die by suicide, this means that substituting more lethal means for less lethal means of suicide can mean the difference between life and death.

It's not that depressed people tend to own guns more. It's that people at risk of suicide who own guns are more likely to actually commit suicide than people who are at risk of suicide but don't have access to a gun. Obviously, mental health history matters. But access to a gun (or other lethal means) matters as well. As with many things, there are multiple factors involved.

And that's what the research shows. I'm sure you won't believe it because it implies (gasp) that there might be a downside to easy gun availability, but it's reality.

As far as your false accusations that I "regurgitate" others' claims: you sure like accusing me of all sorts of things, but you never seem to present any evidence of anything. It's always some strange reference to something that happened a long time ago. I will admit that, unlike you, the things I say are often backed by scientific evidence, but the fact that what I'm saying is corroborated by scientific studies is actually a good thing.

[gejohnston]

62. and?

And that's what the research shows. I'm sure you won't believe it because it implies (gasp) that there might be a downside to easy gun availability, but it's reality.

If the citations match Hemenway's (last I checked he was the department head) claims of course I'll believe it, but always ask questions. It is proper for a lowly layperson to question, is it not? What does easily accessible? On your person and loaded or in a cabinet or safe unloaded? The first example is, the second example is debatable. There is a downside to everything (just as there is an upside to everything), guns included. That is one of the few absolutes. I have never claimed that there was no downside.

As far as your false accusations that I "regurgitate" others' claims: you sure like accusing me of all sorts of things, but you never seem to present any evidence of anything.

OK, if you want a wall of links. There is nothing strange about noting a pattern of behavior over time. If you find observations weird, that is not my problem. If it is offensive, it will be pointed out. If you find that weird, that is not my problem. But then, over the months you have called me stupid, dishonest, anti-intellectual. I would provide the links, but the mods won't give them back. I have never made a false personal attack on you or anyone else. I have never been insulting, condescending to anyone here. Nor have I made false accusations or questioned their sincerity. I frankly find equating climate change denial and creationism with RKBA.

I will admit that, unlike you, the things I say are often backed by scientific evidence, but the fact that what I'm saying is corroborated by scientific studies is actually a good thing.

You are making false assumptions once again. An open mind is also a skeptical mind. Your scientific studies tend to come from the same place, and they have their flaws. Those flaws have been pointed out. They all have flaws. I have nothing against Harvard and Yale, they are fine schools. I disagree with their legacy policies that gave Bush (for example) degrees he did not really earn or work for. I am not going to assume that "this guy works at Harvard, he must be better than this guy at Kansas State".

In all honesty, you are among the few "antis" (for the lack of a better term. Everyone is for control, the only issue is to what degree)

To change the subject and out of curiosity, what is your definition of "reasonable regulations" and why? Please be specific.
With current federal laws, what would you amend and why?
What would you add and subtract?
If we had a national ownership licensing system, would you allow direct online sales without going through FFL (like Canada does, type in your PAL number. Once the PAL number is verified as valid with the RCMP, the gun comes to your door.) In the US, any interstate transfer between non FFLs is a crime. For example, if a church is having a "buy back" in College Park, MD and a DC or VA resident turns in a gun to that church, that resident violated GCA-68. A technical violation that no US attorney in their right mind would touch, but a violation.

[DanTex]

68. Well, in that vein, it is my observation that pro-gunners are

very similar to global warming deniers and creationists in that they are either unaware of or actively ignore empirical evidence for political or ideological reasons. Most are pretty much uninterested in trying to look at the evidence in a systematic manner, they simply believe gun blogs and talking points that tell them that the social scientists and academic journals are "biased" (except, of course, for the few pro-gun contrarians, who are heralded as brave free thinkers willing to stand up to the pervasive liberal bias of the ivory towers). And this is exactly the same situation with climate science and evolution.

This is my observation and, as you put it, there is nothing strange about observing a pattern of behavior.

And if you find the comparison to global warming deniers weird, well, as you put it, that is not my problem. If you adopt a stance in which you choose to repeatedly ignore scientific evidence based on empty talking points and "bias", this is going to be pointed out to you. This is not meant as a personal insult towards you or any other pro-gunner.

Nor, by the way, is it meant as a personal insult towards creationists or global warming skeptics. In fact, I know some global warming skeptics who are good, honest people, so I don't see why you would consider it insulting to be compared to them.

[gejohnston]

69. Interesting, that is my observation of some anti gunners.

and anti alcohol and marijuana folks in the last century.

very similar to global warming deniers and creationists in that they are either unaware of or actively ignore empirical evidence for political or ideological reasons. Most are pretty much uninterested in trying to look at the evidence in a systematic manner, they simply believe gun blogs and talking points that tell them that the social scientists and academic journals are "biased" (except, of course, for the few pro-gun contrarians, who are heralded as brave free thinkers willing to stand up to the pervasive liberal bias of the ivory towers).

Interesting, I see the same in your side. To some degree we are probably both right. When I see a study funded by the same people who astro turfs an advocacy groups to push that position, I would think a truly open minded person would give it stricter scrutiny. Why? That is called an echo chamber. The Kochs do the same with climate science denial, just more sophisticated and a lot more money. To me, that is not anti intellectual, that is an exercise in critical thinking. Umm, many of those are liberals, so I don't get the liberal bias meme. All of the "contrarians" that am familiar with are pro control, but not for prohibition. For example, as much as you don't like Kleck, his personal position is actually closer to you than the NRA's. For example, he personally supports private sales being brokered by FFLs (or the cops) to weed out prohibited persons from answering an ad in the local paper (or a Florida flea market. Can't provide a link because it is something I discussed with him in person.). So do I actually. At least one DU poster also supports it. Given the commerce clause, it would be best done in each state. In the same vein, I don't get the big deal in CCW reciprocity. I see the points on both sides, but I see it going down in flames the same way parts of the Brady Bill, struck down for violating the 10th Amendment. That is assuming it passes.

If you adopt a stance in which you choose to repeatedly ignore scientific evidence based on empty talking points and "bias", this is going to be pointed out to you. This is not meant as a personal insult towards you or any other pro-gunner.

When you take a stance that ignores scientific evidence that disagrees with yours, it will be pointed out. That is rational discussion. When it looks like an echo chamber job, it will be looked at closer. Apparent and obvious flaws will be pointed out. That is critical thinking, not anti-intellectualism. That also is not ignoring evidence, that is weighing it. All of the empty talking points I have seen come from your side (you are actually one of the few that actually say something, or at least is interested in real conversation.).

Nor, by the way, is it meant as a personal insult towards creationists or global warming skeptics. In fact, I know some global warming skeptics who are good, honest people, so I don't see why you would consider it insulting to be compared to them.

All of the ones I know are Dominionists and kind of racist. Like I said above, it looks more like projection. The insult is in making assumptions about about someone because their basic view on one issue. Would you make such assumptions about Democrats for Life? I would not. Just like I am not going to assume the Log Cabin Republicans are not as greedy, anti union, and anti safety net as their straight counterparts. Dems for Life may agree with some elements of the right on one thing, but for different reasons and with different nuances. It works the same with guns. That is true with a few other social (more like side show) issues.

[DanTex]

70. So do we ever get to find out what these mysterious "flaws" you keep talking about are?

Why is it that you keep talking in the passive voice as in "flaws have been pointed out" or "flaws will be pointed out"? Why is it that you never actually come out and say "this study is flawed because of __________"? I'm all in favor of scrutiny and close examination of evidence, but you never actually engage with the evidence.

Just look back at this thread. Your arguments against the suicide studies are primarily:
-- HSPH receives funding from the Joyce and Bohnett Foundations
-- JAMA doesn't know anything about criminology and thus is not relevant (particularly strange in this context, because why would criminologists be better suited than the Journal of the American Medical Association to study suicide)
-- "flaws have been pointed out"
Notice that none of these have anything to do with the scientific content. The closest you came to actually pointing out a flaw was when you claimed that the disparity in suicide rates between high-gun and low-gun states might be due to things like urban/rural, wealth disparities, etc. This is a fair point, which Glassunion brought up as well, but not surprisingly, people who perform these kinds of studies professionally have in fact thought of this before, which is why ecological studies of this nature are almost always controlled for such demographic factors.

In the end, the reason your criticisms are not persuasive is that they are almost entirely content-free. You can talk all you want about what an "echo-chamber" that you believe Harvard School of Public Health has become, but unless you can back this with some substantive criticism, it's just another empty talking point.

[rl6214]

38. Yeah, tell that to the Japanese...they don't have a very high suicide rate

[Glassunion]

47. They picked their data quite carefully.

According to the website you linked, they are comparing "High Gun" states with "Low Gun" states and comparing the suicide totals in those states respectively. Remember that they are comparing the totals, not the rates per 100k.

They state on the website the "Low Gun" states are HI, MA, RI, NH, CT and NY.
They state on the website the "High Gun" states are WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, IO(sic), ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT

According to their own data from lowest guns per household to highest on their own list is: NJ, MA, HI, RI, CT, NY, CA, IL, MD, FL, DE and finally we get to NH. In order to get all of those states on their low list, they had to omit the suicide data for NJ, DE, FL, MD, IL and CA. This omission left roughly 16,000 suicides off their chart. Of the 5 states they picked as Low Gun you have a total population of = 32,857,604.

According to their own data from highest guns per household to lowest on their own list is: WY, MT, SD, AK, AR, WV, ND, ID, MS, AL, KY, TN, OK, IA, NE, LA, UT, MO, VT, SC and finally WI. They omitted the suicide data for ID, OK, NE, MO, VT and SC. This omission left roughly 4,400 suicides off their chart. Of the 15 states they picked as High Gun you have a total population of = 40,858,304.

So for one thing, they are comparing the suicide totals of states with a population difference of 20%.
They are also comparing high income states to low income states.
All of the "Low Gun" states: HI, MA, RI, NH, CT and NY, all have above average median family income.
National Median Family Income: $61,082
HI: $75,066 Rank / 5th Wealthiest
MA: $81,033 Rank / 3rd Wealthiest
RI: $69,350 Rank / 9th Wealthiest
NH: $73,856 Rank / 6th Wealthiest
CT: $83,069 Rank / 2nd Wealthiest
NY: $66,891 Rank / 14th Wealthiest

The Majority of "High Gun" states are below the average median family income. WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, IO(sic), ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN and UT
WY: $65,532 Rank / 16th Wealthiest
SD: $57,764 Rank / 28th Wealthiest
AK: $79,934 Rank / 4th Wealthiest
WV: $47,659 Rank / 47th Wealthiest
MT: $55,010 Rank / 36th Wealthiest
AR: $46,868 Rank / 48th Wealthiest
MS: $45,601 Rank / 50th Wealthiest
IA: $61,156 Rank / 22nd Wealthiest
ND: $63,507 Rank / 17th Wealthiest
AL: $50,779 Rank / 45th Wealthiest
KY: $49,801 Rank / 46th Wealthiest
WI: $62,638 Rank / 20th Wealthiest
LA: $53,427 Rank / 39th Wealthiest
TN: $51,344 Rank / 44th Wealthiest
UT: $62,935 Rank / 19th Wealthiest

They presented it quite poorly to make it appear worse than it really is; and without taking other demographic characteristics into account. Wealth/Poverty, Health Care Availability, Culture, etc...

[DanTex]

49. Yes, there's a typo.

The fourth low-gun state in that list should read "NJ" rather than "NH", which would explain the missing 8 million or so people from the low-gun population total you calculated. Good catch, but this typo doesn't make any substantive difference.

The wealth point you make, though, is a good one. That chart does not take into account other demographic characteristics, things like wealth/poverty, which can also affect suicide rates. This is why I called it a "quick illustration" rather than a comprehensive statistical account of the relationship between gun availability and suicide.

However, if you look at the actual studies, you will find that they do in fact control for demographic factors like wealth disparities. I believe the Miller study this data came from is this one, the full text is not available for free, but from the abstract:

Negative binomial regression was used to assess the relationship between household firearm ownership rates and rates of firearm, nonfirearm, and overall suicide for both sexes and for four age groups. Analyses controlled for rates of poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and drug and alcohol dependence and abuse.

The HSPS page has a bibliography which includes many other studies, most of which are unfortunately not available for free, but if you google around you will find that a few of them are. For example here is a study which controls not only for certain demographic characteristics such as urbanicity and education levels, but also for depression and suicidal thoughts. It finds that the higher suicide rates in high-gun regions cannot be explained by mental health indicators, which supports the hypothesis that the higher rates are a result of access to lethal means, since if factors like poverty were responsible for the correlation, we would expect to find correspondingly higher rates of depression and suicidal thoughts, rather than only completed suicide.

[burf]

6. I agree that gun owners should keep their children safe.

But, there is something I hope someone can explain to me. When I was a kid, I grew up in an area where everyone had guns. In cars at the high school parking lot, during hunting season there were many cars with guns in them. After school some of the teachers would come out and "check out" the guns, seeing who had picked up a new rifle or 870.

Nobody ever got shot, nor do I remember anyone even getting a gun pointed at them even by accident.
We did have our share of school yard disagreements but I don't recall anyone pulling a knife, even though just about everyone carried one.


We are constantly being told that guns are the problem. They weren't then, so what has changed?

[Glassunion]

11. Skynet has become aware.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. There's only...

...191 days left. Til August 29th.

[burf]

16. Excuse my ignorance,

but who is Skynet and what did he become aware of?

TIA

[Glassunion]

17. To quote you...

"We are constantly being told that guns are the problem. They weren't then, so what has changed?"

Skynet was the evil technology that took over the world in the Terminator movies. It was a computer system initially designed to protect that became self aware and saw humanity as a threat and tried to destroy all humanity.

Basically, the technology did not exist back in your day for the gun to become aware, jump up and kill people on its own.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Skynet:

rouge network of DoD computers and satellites controlling all strategic systems.

"...goes on-line August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."

"Skynet fights back?"
"Yes. It launches its missiles against the targets in Russia."
"Why attack Russia? Aren't they our friends now?"
"Because Skynet knows the Russian counter-attack will eliminate its enemies over here."

See the plot summary for Terminator 2: Judgement Day

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. GREAT QUESTION

Don't have answer but things have changed.....haven't they?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. People maybe a bit;

things... no, they're still the same.

[Hoyt]

28. Why continue that "everyone has guns" into the next generation? At some point, you have to

say it is time to deal with the issue of guns. Otherwise, in a decade there will be another 100 million of them because the "gun culture" keeps buying them for some friggin reason. The issue will be even more difficult to deal with at that point.

What has changed in my mind is the way the "gun culture" looks at carrying and accumulating guns today. Callous gun owners on DU have expressed their opinion that it is OK to shoot an unarmed person running from the scene of a minor car breakin. Right wingers are even more callous.

The fact is that there are a lot more people than back when you or I were a kid. Pressure is a lot different today. Back, then, there weren't mass murderers. There is just not a good rationale for people carrying guns in most public places today. I know some can't envision life without carrying one when they venture out, but that's no reason to allow it.

I hope some day, most people will look at guns as being taboo -- just like smoking a stinking cigar in public, carrying a swastika, polluting, etc.

[gejohnston]

30. one thing

Back, then, there weren't mass murderers. There is just not a good rationale for people carrying guns in most public places today. I know some can't envision life without carrying one when they venture out, but that's no reason to allow it.

Yes there were, the only difference was that CNN, Faux, MSNBC, did not have satellite trucks showing at each one.

[Hoyt]

39. Not many.

[Marengo]

31. How old were you in 1927? N/T

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. he was so much older then, he's younger than that now

my apologies to Bob.

[Hoyt]

40. Pretty bad. I wonder if Dylan carries?

[Straw Man]

48. I don't know if he carries ...

... but he bought a lever-action Winchester when he lived in Woodstock and was being stalked by some crazy fans.

[Hoyt]

41. 1927 related to guns? My granddad was 29. He carried a .22 on farm, but nothing in little town.

[Marengo]

43. Andrew Kehoe, 1927...

"The fact is that there are a lot more people than back when you or I were a kid. Pressure is a lot different today. Back, then, there weren't mass murderers."

Yes, there were.

[Hoyt]

45. Still not many, and he had to build a bomb rather than reach for a couple guns.

[Marengo]

50. But not none as you claimed. N/T

[Glassunion]

65. The vast majority of homicide to teens and young adults

can be traced to gang violence and gang involvement in the drug trade.

If we could fix this nation's drug problem, homicide by any means would drop substantially. That is until the gangs find another illegal venture to trade in.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. 19 is a child?

When I was 19 I had already served a full tour in Vietnam and was back in the States. Are you saying that I was a child soldier?

[ManiacJoe]

67. Only when you want to inflate the numbers.