Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family

[rDigital]

Last edited Wed Sep 19, 2012, 06:14 PM - Edit history (1)

http://ohio.concealedcampus.org/2012/09/17/buckeyes-for-concealed-carry-president-uses-handgun-to-defend-family/

At approximately 7:00 pm Saturday night, Ohio State Students Joe and Amanda Smith were approached by a threatening white male near Westland Mall requiring Joe, Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus President, to use his concealed handgun to defend himself, his wife Amanda, and their sixteen month old son Kyedin.

The threatening male approached their vehicle while Amanda was buckling Kyedin into his stroller and Joe was near the tailgate. He began making cat calls at Amanda as he closed in on her. Amanda and Joe asked him to leave them alone. Joe placed himself between his wife and the aggressor while a panicked Amanda began to remove Kyedin from the stroller and place him back into the vehicle. The male then became belligerent and began issuing threats to Joe.

“He just kept coming, no matter what I said. Then he told me he had a gun and had no problem killing all of us,” said Joe. Joe instructed Amanda to call the police while he engaged the threat. “He kept saying he was going to kill us. He stopped short to answer his phone and told whoever it was where he was and to come help him get this ‘white honky.’”

“I demanded he stop, but he didn’t. When he was about fifteen feet away, I drew my handgun,” Joe explained. “I was prepared to shoot, but didn’t have to.”

Why would you ever want a firearm to protect yourself and your family? I think this story speaks for itself. I think without his personal defense firearm, this situation would have turned ugly quickly.

To all of those who would have disarmed this man: shame on you.

UPDATE:

UPDATE/STATE DIRECTOR’S NOTE:
Some in the anti-self defense community have been publicly questioning the validity of this story. This update/note will address those questions.

[kimbutgar]

1. This sounds like a made up story- why would a white man call another white man "white honky"?

[MercutioATC]

6. You've never seen white wannabe "gangstas" with racial confusion?

I have. Luckily, the ones I've encountered have been mostly harmless.

[Confusious]

51. Who uses the word "honky?" nt

[jeepnstein]

114. My brother in law.

He's never referred to me as one but has used the term in a more generic fashion.

[Eleanors38]

52. Well, couldn't you imagine being called a "black honky?"

You do know the world-wide irony of an airline called NWA?

[Flashmann]

153. made up story or

Staged for effect..

[ileus]

2. rude baser toter.

[SecularMotion]

3. Do you have another source for this besides "Students for Concealed Carry - Ohio"?

Smells like BS

[glacierbay]

4. But yet you have no problem posting articles

from VPC, Huffington Post, and the Brady org. w/o other sources confirming.

[rDigital]

5. The police were clearly involved, why don't you call them?

Deputy Zachary P. Cooper (#933) of the Franklin County Sheriff’s office responded to Amanda’s 911 call in approximately 7 minutes. Deputy Cooper told Joe “this is exactly why law abiding citizens can carry firearms. I’m a firm believer in it.”

[SecularMotion]

7. You say the police were involved

yet there is no report of the "assailant" being pursued or arrested. The "victim" claims the "assailant" left in a vehicle. Why didn't he hold him at gunpoint until the police arrived? Did he give the police the plate number of the vehicle?

Until I read further details from a credible source, I'm not buying this story.

[rDigital]

8. I'm sure there's a police report. We can make that your responsibility to go and fetch it.

Run along now, fetch.

[SecularMotion]

11. If you can't find a more credible source, you should self-delete the OP

[glacierbay]

12. See post #4 nt.

[rDigital]

13. Fetch, boy, fetch!

[glacierbay]

15. Funny how he'll post anti gun articles from the VPC, Huffington Post, or the Brady org.

w/o other sources and expect us to take them as gospel, yet when a pro gun article is posted, he demands either other sources or it be self deleted.
Can you say hypocrisy?

[Reasonable_Argument]

14. Here's the phone number if you'd like to call them

[phone]

[Reasonable_Argument]

9. Just from the facts presented

I think he waited far to long to draw his weapon. After repeatedly ordering him to stop and being told the assailant had a weapon I would have drawn. Then after one more warning to stop, fired the weapon if he approached or made what appeared to be a move to the weapon. Fifteen feet is very close and takes away much of your reaction time.

[LynnTTT]

10. Sounds totally bogus

At 7 at night in a busy shopping center a single guy approaches a young man with his family? No one else sees it? The guy with the gun doesn't follow the criminal? Even though his wife could call the cops while he was holding the criminal off? Never sees the license number?
BS

[Clames]

16. You and SM seem to have some wish he had escalated the situation...

...until someone was shot or killed.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Self-defense does not include pursuit and capture.

Once the bad guy breaks off and retreats the action is over. If the CCWer then pursues, the CCWer also then becomes the aggressor.

[Trunk Monkey]

81. Re: The guy with the gun doesn't follow the criminal

Carrying a gun doesn't make you a cop. You carry a firearm for self defense, if the bad guy runs away you are under no obligation to follow or attempt to apprehend him/her and if you try you can open yourself to charges of unlawful detainment.

I imagine that if the guy had tried to follow his assailant there would have been a host of gun controllers here calling him a vigilante.

[bluecoat_fan]

17. OSU Students near Westland Mall makes it a suspicious story.

Westland Mall is really run down and long drive from campus. There are dozens of malls near OSU like Lenox, Polaris, and Easton, so why go all the way to Westland Mall(other than to see the Gun Show a couple of weeks ago)? Also, Westland Mall area is under Columbus Police jurisdiction, so you have to convince me that Franklin County Deputies responded. Giving a badge number as part of the story also makes it suspicious.

Lets see the police report.

[Clames]

22. Make sure you keep all these posts in mind the next time you consider calling a gun owner...

...suspicious and paranoid...

[bluecoat_fan]

83. The story sounds suspicious, not the gun owner. I too own a handgun, but the story sounds made up.

[bongbong]

19. More lies

Pity the Delicate Flowers. They need their Precious (their guns) to feel safe enough to walk out the door. They like to make up stories to justify their fear-filled existence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. "lies"? Details, please...

[Eleanors38]

21. I think the expression he uses is "prove it." nt

[DanTex]

23. Like many gun hero stories, this appears to be mostly fantasy and bravado.

The fact that this guy is the president of "Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus" is a good clue that he's got something to prove, so it's not surprising that a guy like this would fabricate or grossly exaggerate a gun hero story, just to be able to brag about it and justify his psychological need to walk around with a loaded gun.

It's worth pointing out that, no matter how many gun hero stories the gun nuts manage to trot out, there isn't any statistical evidence that walking around with a loaded gun makes a person safer, and in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction.

[Clames]

24. No it doesn't.

and in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction.

You haven't posted one shred of credible, empirical evidence to support this notion. I have a feeling you aren't about to start either...

[DanTex]

25. LOL. No evidence! Sometimes I forget how clueless people in the gungeon are!

I know that the whole concept of "peer-reviewed studies" is alien to gun fanatics, but since you asked, here's a decent study surveying the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of gun ownership.

Abstract: This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in
the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

Another interesting study finding that gun possession did not protect people from being shot in an assault.

In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

And so on. I know, trying to use scientific evidence with the NRA crowd is like trying to explain math to a tree stump...

[Reasonable_Argument]

26. Remove suicides from those numbers

And get back to me.

[DanTex]

27. Umm... I think you're getting your NRA talking points mixed up.

[Reasonable_Argument]

28. No I was talking about the first link

After reading the 2nd link

Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person’s possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.

I'd like to see a control for what those victims prior criminal history was and the circumstances around the shooting.

[DanTex]

29. So was I.

Also, that second study did control for victims' prior criminal history and also the circumstances around the shooting.

[Reasonable_Argument]

30. Really?

First link

The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk fac-
tor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.

Second link

As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot.
These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study’s controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting

I see no such control on either one.

[DanTex]

31. Yes, really.

The first paper surveyed many potential risks and benefits. Suicide is just one of the risks. I have no idea why you think the suicide risk should be ignored, but even if you ignore it, it doesn't change the conclusion that the risks outweigh the benefits, particularly since there is no credible evidence that gun ownership carries any substantial safety benefit.

I see no such control on either one.

Here's a link to the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

[Reasonable_Argument]

32. So then you admit it was included...

I think suicides should be omitted in total, if you off yourself intentionally with a weapon I simply will not accept that as a reason to restrict my rights. As sad as a suicide is... I simply don't care, it's a personal choice. You're also making a point not supported by your links, "particularly since there is no credible evidence that gun ownership carries any substantial safety benefit". Also, I noticed how you ignored my 2nd point about the 2nd link. You should read your links before you rest your arguments on them.

[DanTex]

36. It was a survey, it included a lot of things.

It's a study about whether a gun increases safety or increases overall risk. It's not about what you think is a reason to restrict your rights. My point is that there is no credible evidence that a gun provides a protective benefit, whereas there is evidence that it increases risks in various ways -- accident, suicide, homicide.

You are free to think that a 12-year old who finds a gun and shoots him or herself is making a "personal choice", in fact, that's perfectly consistent with the rest of the NRA philosophy. That doesn't change the evidence.

Also, I noticed how you ignored my 2nd point about the 2nd link.

I ignored nothing. The study controlled for criminal history and circumstances surrounding the shooting. You are plainly wrong.

[Reasonable_Argument]

41. Well then

Please provide a link because I saw no exclusion of prior criminal history. Also, you're still making statements outside the studies you posted and, as for suicides, I see no control for ages. Don't post studies as the basis of your argument and then tack on your opinion as if those studies supported it.

[DanTex]

43. It seems to me that this is the first statistical study you have ever seen in your life.

In an attempt to deny the conclusions, you are writing some very incoherent sentences. Here's a tip. When you don't really understand something, rather than assuming it must be all wrong, you should try and go in with an open mind, to at least try and understand the methodology before trying to deny it.

[TPaine7]

85. "When you don't really understand something..."

When you don't really understand something, rather than assuming it must be all wrong, you should try and go in with an open mind, to at least try and understand the methodology before trying to deny it.

Didn't read the paper, but I'm pretty sure there's another side to it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117266245#post71

[DanTex]

86. LOL. With the way you take things out of context, you ought to work for the Romney campaign.

[TPaine7]

88. Why, are you his recruiter? No thanks I'll stick with Obama, but my condolences on your desperate,

desperate spin.

The context doesn't help you:

DanTex (2,232 posts)
71. Didn't read the paper, but I'm pretty sure there's another side to it.

View profile
For every law out there there's some wacko who thinks it's unconstitutional.

[DanTex]

89. Maybe Ron Paul is more your speed -- one of those "it's unconstitutional" wackos you seem to like.

Still, I'm not really sure why you brought up that old thread. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with pro-gunners not knowing what it means to "control for" something statistically?

[TPaine7]

90. Once again, my condolences.

Still, I'm not really sure why you brought up that old thread. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with pro-gunners not knowing what it means to "control for" something statistically?

Sigh. Statistics aren't everything, no matter how fervently you wish. There are principles that transcend statistics, or any other mathematical tools. This is one of them:

When you don't really understand something, rather than assuming it must be all wrong, you should try and go in with an open mind, to at least try and understand the methodology before trying to deny it.

Unfortunately, that isn't a legitimate principle for you. It's spin, a convenient soundbite. You'll have to do your recruiting elsewhere; while I have to concede your impressive skills, I'm not interested in bobbing, weaving, and evading the truth, especially in the service of Lurch Luthor.

The old quote is relevant in that it shows, quite clearly, how devoted you are to your principle of convenience.

[DanTex]

92. Until you showed up to try and settle some old scores, this was, in fact, a discussion about a

statistical study. I don't know where you get the idea that I wish statistics were everything. What I think is that, when discussing a statistical study, it's good to, umm, understand statistics.

I still don't understand what that other thread has to do with this. It seems like you have some kind of axe to grind here, but like I said in that other thread, I'm not really interested in your strange gun-centric theories of constitutionality, no matter what Ron Paul or Scalia or whoever else you are reading thinks.

[gejohnston]

93. If you read the paper

you would know the paper had nothing to do with guns, 2A, Scalia, or Ron Paul for that matter. It paper basically said that the NYC licensing process, not the law, violated the New York Constitution's article on due process. It did not say licensing violated anything, it said giving a police sergeant arbitrary authority did. Anyone with a sixth grade education can grasp that.

[DanTex]

94. Why are we talking about this again?

I'm fully aware that for every law out there, there is some nutjob who thinks it's unconstitutional. Especially gun laws. Who cares?

Aside from the fact that TPaine7 has an axe to grind, I don't see what this has to do this thread. Do you?

[gejohnston]

95. search me

but it wasn't the gun law, just that part of the process. The point was to amend the law not repeal or strike it down. As for "nutjob", since you did not read it and your grasp of NY Constitutional law, or the fine details of the Sullivan Law for that matter, is likely to be nonexistent, I don't think you have any business calling the guy a nutjob.

In fairness to TP, he could be using it to illustrate that you tend to make assumptions about things you don't know anything about or understand, even while trying to convince others that you do.

[DanTex]

96. So it is a personal grudge!

I freely admit I have no knowledge of NY Constitutional law. However, the fact that a gun nut can find someone (nutjob or not) arguing that a certain gun law is unconstitutional doesn't impress me much. I didn't care very much at the time, and I really don't care now.

As for the personal attacks against me, blah blah blah...

[gejohnston]

97. ask him

you don't know if it was a gun nut that wrote it. It might be someone who doesn't care about guns, but has a problem with giving anyone, especially NYPD, arbitrary authority over anything.

[TPaine7]

99. That's the problem...

You don't care about the evidence presented; you casually dismiss it without examination. And you see no problem with doing so in the face of your own statement of what would be a clear principle coming from any honest, decent human being.

You don't care about the national Constitution or the integrity of the American legal system, as you've so clearly expressed. You don't care about the NY Constitution of the integrity of the NY legal system, either. You don't even care about principles of approaching evidence that you yourself propagate. They are time and subject limited to ensure that they suit your purposes, and yours alone.

I wonder if you really care about statistics, or whether you would abandon respect for them as well as soon as they weren't convenient.

I have no grudge against you, but I have a severe, longstanding grudge against BS. I'm attacking the BS; it's not my fault you identify yourself with it.

[DanTex]

110. You have a wild imagination.

Do you really think it helps your case to pretend that I have "clearly expressed" that I "don't care about the national Constitution or the integrity of the American legal system". LOL. What I don't care about is the fact that you can come up with some opinion as to why some law you don't like is unconstitutional. I'm hoping you can tell the difference, and that you are aware that there are a lot of opinions about how the constitution should be interpreted, both in general and also in terms of specific laws.

If you really had a grudge against BS, maybe you should go after the person who claimed that the study I presented didn't control for criminal history. Because that's the most clearly false statement made by anyone other than you in this whole thread.

[TPaine7]

111. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65296

[DanTex]

112. LOL.

[TPaine7]

98. Mea Culpa

Ok, you say I took your statement out of context (post 86). It seems there were two contextual issues.

First, the post I brought up was too old--"I'm not really sure why you brought up that old thread." Second, the point I was making was off subject, the subject, of course, being statistics--"It doesn't seem to have anything to do with pro-gunners not knowing what it means to 'control for' something statistically?"

But I think I see the problem, and I'm big enough to admit that it was all in my perception. If I had only read your statement in context, I could have avoided this whole misunderstanding:

When, on or about 18 September 2012 you don't really understand something pertaining to what it means to 'control for' something statistically, rather than assuming it must be all wrong, you should try and go in with an open mind, to at least try and understand the statistical methodology before trying to deny it.

I am used to dealing with gun extremists, gun bloggers, and other assorted undesirables who would read a statement like...

When you don't really understand something, rather than assuming it must be all wrong, you should try and go in with an open mind, to at least try and understand the methodology before trying to deny it.

...as a general statement of principle that would apply all the time and on all subjects, even when it wasn't convenient for the person upholding the principle.

My mistake.

[Reasonable_Argument]

35. Just read the link

Nothing in it supports your assertion that prior criminal history was excluded.

[DanTex]

40. I said it was controlled for, not excluded.

It was a case-control study. Do you even know what that is? Are you just making stuff up as you go?

[Reasonable_Argument]

44. Controlled for

Means considered as a possible factor in the results. The study attempts to make a general assertion with that group included without adding that prior criminal history was a large factor, so therefore should be excluded when drawing conclusions about the general weapon carrying populace in total. The fact that it wasn't means it WASN'T controlled for in the result, only observed.

[DanTex]

45. No, that's not what controlled for means.

Look, if you don't understand how case-control studies and multivariate regressions work, you need to read up before making all these inane and mistaken claims. Sorry, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Criminal history most definitely was controlled for in the result. It was not just "observed". You really have no idea what you are talking about.

[Reasonable_Argument]

78. Well stats was a long time ago but...

In a scientific experiment measuring the effect of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable, controlling for a variable is a method to reduce the confounding effect of variations in a third variable that may also affect the value of the dependent variable. For example, in an experiment to determine the effect of nutrition (the independent variable) on organism growth (the dependent variable), the age of the organism (the third variable) needs to be controlled for, since the effect may also depend on the age of an individual organism.
To a certain extent, systematic selection bias can be avoided, and the further confounding effect can be reduced, by a random assignment of individuals to the experimental group and the control group, but controlling tends to reduce the experimental error further.
The essence of the method is to ensure that comparisons between the control group and the experimental group are only made for groups or subgroups for which the variable to be controlled has (as much as possible) the same statistical distribution. A common way to achieve this is to partition the groups into subgroups whose members have (nearly) the same value for the controlled variable.
Controlling for a variable is also a term used in statistical data analysis when inferences may need to be made for the relationships within one set of variables given that some of the inter-relations may derive from relations to variables in another set. This is broadly equivalent to conditioning on the variables in the second set, although in some techniques only linear relations may be taken into account. Such analyses may be described as "controlling for variable X", or "controlling for the variations in X".

You trying to to say that having a weapon makes you less safe. They do the study and try to generalize the results to the population as a whole without the caveat that prior criminal history is a large factor.

[DanTex]

79. For the third time, yes, the study controlled for prior criminal history.

The fact that you don't personally understand the statistical methods they used to do the controlling doesn't mean they didn't do it.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. 53.12% of victims had prior arrests.

The study made no effort to distinguish between legal carriers and illegal ones. All they discovered was that being an armed drug dealer is a good way to get shot.

[DanTex]

39. Right, and the effect of criminal history was controlled for statistically.

Along with a whole bunch of other factors, both about the victims and also about the circumstances of the shooting.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. How many of the victims had a PA License to Carry Firearm?

That information is not included. Maybe none of them did? We don't know. It is easily possible that all of the gun carring victims were carrying illegally. They can't just claim that they controlled for something, they have to show that it was controlled for.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. Rebuttal:

The second of your so-called studies is available on-line at no cost at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Read it and you will notice that they do no separate out legal from illegal carriers. In Table 1, 53.12% of people who were shot have prior arrests, & many were drug dealers. All they discovered was that being an armed drug dealer involves a high likelyhood of getting shot. It would be very interesting if they had sorted out the CCWers from the thugs instead of lumping them together.

In the first study I could not find a free online source, but it is by David Hemenway. I have read other of his stuff and found it to be biased, meaning he starts with a conclusion and works from there. If you can provide a link to a free online source I will read and review it. Otherwise it is nothing more than a claim made by a biased gun-grabber.

[DanTex]

38. They controlled for criminal record, along with a host of other factors.

You should make an effort to understand the statistical methodology instead of just sticking your head in the ground.

Oh, and of course you find Hemenway biased! He's a Harvard professor and one of America's leading experts on gun violence. There's nothing the NRA crowd hates more then legitimate scientific research.

[4th law of robotics]

33. Let me guess, the Brady campaign is the only sufficiently unbiased source of information

to use on such matters?

That or someone's anti-gun blog.

[DanTex]

46. Peer reviewed studies.

It occurs to me that as much as the NRA bots like to whine about how "biased" the peer-reviewed studies are, they don't actually ever come up with any actual evidence of the supposed safety benefit that a gun provides. It's all gun hero stories.

That's because the statistics don't bear it out.

[4th law of robotics]

47. Ha . . .what?!?!

That is the exact opposite of reality.

A casual glance at the threads on this forum will show that the only side presenting real evidence is the pro-2nd amendment side.

The antis regularly post google dumps consisting of little more than "criminal shoots someone".

According to the FBI crime stats are down across the board and have been dropping consistently. Do you acknowledge this?

[DanTex]

48. Peer-reviewed studies...

I don't see any "real evidence". You don't really consider an anecdote from a pro-gun activist to be "evidence", do you?

[4th law of robotics]

49. Do you consider FBI crime statistics to be valid?

[DanTex]

50. I presented two peer reviewed studies. You?

What "real evidence" has been presented by the gun nuts in this thread? None.

I don't see what FBI crime statistics have to do with whether owning or carrying a gun provides more of a risk than a benefit.

[4th law of robotics]

53. If you must ignore the FBI's studies on this then I think we have nothing to discuss

And I was hoping you would answer that question so I could do my followup. You refused. Since we couldn't even start from a point of agreement on that there's no hope of you accepting anything based on those conclusions.

Like discussing evolution with someone who won't even acknowledge the earth is older than 6,000 years. You have to have that starting point or else everything following is pointless.

[DanTex]

56. FBI doesn't have statistics on this.

FBI has raw data about crime. It provides no evidence about whether carrying a gun provides a safety benefit or increases risk to an individual. Unless you think it does, in which case you need to explain how.

Funny you bring up evolution. Another area where you have peer-reviewed studies on one side and ignorant right-wingers on the other.

[4th law of robotics]

57. Do you acknowledge the the FBI statistics show crime is dropping?

[DanTex]

58. Yes. Do you acknowledge that a gun provides more risk than benefit?

[4th law of robotics]

59. Excellent. Do you acknowledge that while it was dropping total guns owned

by private citizens increased in the US?

[DanTex]

60. You ignored my question.

Do you acknowledge that the peer-reviewed science indicates that a gun provides a greater risk than benefit?

[4th law of robotics]

61. You ignored mine multiple times

fair is fair.

Do you acknowledge that while crimes dropped gun access increased?

[DanTex]

62. LOL. Well, ignoring the truth doesn't make it go away.

As far as the crime drop, the majority of the crime drop occurred in the 90s, at the same time that gun ownership rates dropped significantly. In the 2000s, both gun ownership rates and crime rates continued to drop, but at a slower rate. Of course, since a lot of factors affect crime rates, just that data on its own proves nothing, and it is necessary to perform controlled statistical analyses that look at the data at a more detailed level. There have been several peer-reviewed studies about the link between gun ownership and crime, and they have concluded that more guns result in more homicide -- on average, each additional 10,000 gun owning households adds 1 to 3 additional homicides. Here are two of them.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

But, as I've repeated several times, this is a different question than what we have been discussed in this thread, which is whether, at the individual level, owning or carrying a gun increases or decreases risks associated with crime victimization. I get that you have only memorized a few NRA talking points, but it would be nice if you tried to address the question at hand.

[4th law of robotics]

63. So we have more guns and less crime

on this we can agree.

I will not accept any studies that do not factor out illegally owned guns (since we're talking about legal gun ownership) and that consider suicide and legitimate self defense to be murder.

Those are obviously misleading and intended to be. You agree certainly?

A murder is a vastly different problem than a suicide.

[DanTex]

64. LOL. Ignoring me again. I guess when you have no evidence on your side, that's the only play!

The statistical evidence shows that (1) ceteris paribus, higher gun ownership rates result in higher homicide rates and (2) at an individual level, there is no evidence that a gun provides a significant safety benefit, and the evidence indicates the risks are greater.

If you have any evidence that, at an individual level, a gun provides a safety benefit, now would be a good time to present it.

[glacierbay]

66. I have real world evidence

I've carried a gun for almost 30 years now and haven't been shot yet (knocks on wood).
Higher gun ownership rates does not result in higher homicide rates unless you count criminal on criminal shootings. In my city, applications for CC permits have skyrocket while we are seeing a drop in shootings, that is real world stats.. You can post all the studies you want, I have much more experience than most of those knuckleheads, pro and con, and you BTW. Not trying to be nasty, but it is what it is.

[DanTex]

67. What you have is anecdotal evidence.

[glacierbay]

68. Wrong.

What I have is real world evidence and experience, all you have is studies which, quite frankly, are bullshit in the real world to real LEO's.

[DanTex]

69. Actually, I'm right. What you have is anecdotal evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Anecdotal evidence can be useful in some situations, but you have to be careful with it, and statistical evidence is generally considered superior.

[glacierbay]

71. Well

we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

[ellisonz]

125. Your attempt at an argument here sucks. n/t

[DanTex]

128. Yeah, that guy tends to make a lot of noise and then hide when evidence is presented.

A lot of the ignorance from the NRA crowd goes back to the problem you identified a while ago: the inability to comprehend multivariate analysis. I wonder if there's a link between the fact that American students do so badly in math and sciences, and that loony gun fanaticism seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon.

[4th law of robotics]

130. That's one interpretation

not the correct one however.

Instead I point out facts that you consistently ignore as you attempt to rewrite reality. At some point depending on how enthusiastic I feel I give up and move on to other things.

You're like the creationist who screams "buh buh bible!" over and over again until people give up then claim no one can debate your superior facts.

[DanTex]

131. LOL. The "creationist" charge by the guy who's intent on ignoring the scientific evidence.

Awesome!

This isn't the first time you've bolted as soon as I presented some empirical evidence and peer reviewed studies. It's plainly obvious that the way you deal with the empirical evidence is to ignore it all. You stick around long enough to parrot a few NRA talking points, but as soon as the conversation moves past the bumper stickers into the real evidence, you're gone!

Like ellisonz said a while ago, if everyone were scientifically literate to the point of understanding multivariate analysis, there would basically be no NRA bots left.

[4th law of robotics]

134. You refuse to acknowledge

that a suicide is not the same as a murder.

That a legally owned gun is not the same as an illegally owned one.

That the earth is greater than 6,000 years old.

Yes it does become difficult to argue when one starts from a premise that is completely wrong.

This isn't the first time you've bolted as soon as I presented some empirical evidence and peer reviewed studies. It's plainly obvious that the way you deal with the empirical evidence is to ignore it all. You stick around long enough to parrot a few NRA talking points, but as soon as the conversation moves past the bumper stickers into the real evidence, you're gone!

Except your empirical evidence and it's flaws have been addressed, endlessly. You refuse to acknowledge those flaws. So how should one proceed?

If you start from the premise that the Bible is flawless then yes people will probably stop arguing with you after a while.

[DanTex]

140. What are you talking about?

Those NRA talking points that have absolutely nothing to do with any of the evidence I've presented. You haven't even bothered to try and match up your talking points with the studies! Because if you did you'd realize the are entirely irrelevant to anything I've presented.

You're reading off the wrong script. Whatever study the person who wrote those talking points had in mind is not one of the studies that I've cited.

You know, this wouldn't happen if you tried thinking for yourself...

[4th law of robotics]

161. You like that phrase

"NRA talking points".

It's a conveinent way to ignore any points someone throws at you without actually addressing them.

As I and others have pointed out your studies have many many flaws. You won't realize that because you haven't actually read them.

I did and responded accordingly.

[ellisonz]

138. I suppose the irony is that given his username...

You'd think he would have some propensity for sociology. I think he's really just interested in playing with robot toys.

I would also say that it goes beyond just the math and sciences. We're dealing with a lower-education level on average in their demographic.

[DanTex]

141. Yes, I agree, it is a low-education level demographic.

It's also a cultural thing. Anti-intellectualism is sort of a tradition on the right, and the gun culture in particular. It's the whole "truthiness" thing. Why bother with a careful and detailed statistical analysis when you can just recite bumper stickers.

Still, who would have thought that multivariate analysis would be so mind-boggling to the NRA bots. And I'm not talking about being able to actually do the statistics, I mean just the concept in itself.

[4th law of robotics]

162. It's clear neither of you read those studies

or else you'd realize the criticisms leveled at them aren't "NRA talking points".

Moment of honesty here: did you actually get past the intro? Did you read that ever so boring "materials and methods" section that usually contains a lot of the most relevant information?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

It's fun to feel condescending. But it's kind of embarrassing when you're labeling the people who actually read those studies as being uneducated for pointing out issues you would have noticed had you bothered to read them (rather than simply believing what you were told to believe about them).

[DanTex]

165. LOL. "pointing out issues"

You didn't even manage to figure out that the journal that published the study is different than the website where the pdf file is hosted! I mean, did you even read the titles?!?!

[4th law of robotics]

166. This is getting sad

It's clear you either did not read or did not comprehend those links you posted.

So now instead of admitting that you must project your own ignorance and lack of understanding on to everyone else who did read them and pointed out their flaws.

You're intellectual because you believed what you were told about those links when you saw them on some anti-gun site.

We're unable to think for ourselves and anti-intellectual because we actual read and understood them.

Sad really.

Is your hatred of guns really something that's worth coming across as silly as you are?

[DanTex]

168. You have yet to make a single cogent critique of any of the studies.

In fact "incoherent" is a very mild term for the "critiques" that you are making. You obviously have never encountered either a multi-variate regression or a proxy variable before, and so it all seems like voodoo to you. In order to actually understand what is goig on, you'd have to take Stats 101 and then Stats 102...

So instead of trying to make an actual substantive criticism, you attack the website that hosted the pdf file. I guess you still haven't figure out that IANSA didn't actually publish the study...

These studies are by highly reputed social scientists and they made it through peer review at top academic journals, which means that experts in the field found the methods to be sound. Do you really think that a marginally educated gun fanatic is going to be able to find a simple flaw that all the experts missed, without even reading past the abstract?

[4th law of robotics]

170. Actually I've made several

your response was "nu uh".

You obviously have never encountered either a multi-variate regression or a proxy variable before, and so it all seems like voodoo to you.

A proxy based in part on the metric you're trying to study is silly. Not the entire concept. Just the way these people used it.

See this is one of those cogent critiques I provided that you brushed off because you failed to understand what I was saying.

[DanTex]

172. Wrong again.

A proxy based in part on the metric you're trying to study is silly.

Umm, but the proxy is not part of the metric! Again, he validates the proxy variable independently of the link between gun ownership and homicide. This is completely obvious if you read the paper.

You are way out of your depth here, and are putting together sentences that barely make sense. I can assure you that any error as silly as what you are suggesting would never have made it through peer review.

[4th law of robotics]

174. You forgot your smiley

how can you make a point without one?

Here:

[DanTex]

176. And you forgot to make a cogent point.

Remember, you were claiming that the proxy variables weren't validated independently of the correlation with homicide, which is plainly false. Do you any other critiques, preferably something true? Or is that it?

[4th law of robotics]

179. "cogent point"

[DanTex]

181. Looks like you've completely given up on substance. Not too surprising.

Another gun fanatic proves to be scientifically illiterate. I guess the proxy variable stuff was a little too complicated for you...

[4th law of robotics]

183. "scientifically illiterate"

[DanTex]

186. Still dodging! Anytime you want to talk substance, I'll be here!

Just to remind you, we were talking about what it means to properly validate a proxy variable...

[4th law of robotics]

129. Not really

you don't like the conclusion, my argument is fine.

There's a difference.

If one claims more guns leads to more crime and the hard facts show that we have more guns and fewer crimes what does that prove?

Does it prove the initial claim is right and anyone who points this out "sucks" at arguing?

[DanTex]

132. Like I pointed out last time you made that silly argument...

...there is extensive evidence that more guns leads to more homicide. Of course, as any seven-year-old would understand, there are other factors involved, which is why the fact that crime has dropped while gun sales increased over a certain period of time doesn't prove or disprove anything. The concept you need to read up about is ceteris paribus. In order to figure out the relationship between guns and homicide, it is necessary to look at more data, at a more granular level, and in a more systematic and scientific way.

On top of that, the hard facts are that the bulk of the crime drop occurred in the 90s, at the same time that gun ownership rates also dropped significantly. In the 2000s the drop in violent crime slowed and in some cases leveled off. So even the very coarse data doesn't support your case.

There is ample statistical evidence about this topic, which I pointed you to last time you parroted this NRA talking point. What you did, predictably, is run and hide. Whether this is because you are actually not capable of thinking beyond bumper stickers, or because you actually are smart enough to realize that the argument you are making falls apart upon the slightest amount of scrutiny, that I'm not sure of.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1081321

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and
crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on
gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual
rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during
the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun
ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact
of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of
gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked.
Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates,
and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy
for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using
county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun
prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.
Under certain reasonable assumptions, the average annual marginal social cost of household gun
ownership is in the range $100 to $1800.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

That said, for the large majority of
households, having a gun in the home
will not provide either health benefits or
costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that
the costs will widely outweigh the benefits. The benefit–cost ratio is especially
adverse for women and children in the
household. Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do
not belong in households with children:
The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about
guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess
guns to remove them, especially
handguns, from the home.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

Beyond that, there are the international comparisons, which you chose to ignore, but which are nevertheless important datapoints. Like I said, the US has far looser gun laws and far more gun violence than any other wealthy nation? Do you think that's just a coincidence?

Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun
ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of
homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation
between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by
other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the
absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

[4th law of robotics]

133. As has been pointed out to you before

the studies you cite are always flawed.

As long as suicide and legitimate self defense are lumped in with murder and no attempt is made to differentiate between legally and illegally owned guns the conclusions are worthless.

In response to concerns about these methods you post more papers that . . . use the exact same methods. You just don't get it.

And an international agency intending to get rid of guns is not exactly an unbiased source.

/Look at the entire rest of this thread where myself and others have pointed out your flawed reasoning. Your response has been to restate your conclusion and ignore those flaws.

//at some point people give up arguing with the zealot in the street. He takes that as proof that he's right.

[DanTex]

137. LOL. "the studies you cite are always flawed"

Spoken like a true creationist!

Would you be so kind as to point out why they are flawed? And why nobody in the scientific community seems to think they are flawed, just the ignorant gun fanatics?

Like I said in my last post, gun fanatics like you always avoid specifics, and hide behind generalities. In fact, the studies I have posted use a number of different methods so the fact that you seem to think you can dismiss them all with a few sentences is laughable. What you are doing is dodging. Plain and simple. You've got your bumper sticker, and you're sticking to it, no matter what the scientific evidence says. If you have an actual specific criticism of any of the evidence I've presented, please, by all means, let's hear it. But you are hiding behind vague generalities that are either overtly false or else not even remotely applicable to the discussion at hand. You might as well claim that the studies are flawed because the aren't orange enough.

For example, I post a study that shows that higher gun ownership rates lead to more homicide, and you claim that it doesn't distinguish between homicide and suicide? Are you kidding?

And your second criticism, that the studies don't attempt to differentiate between lawful gun owners and criminals is also plainly false. As I pointed out many times this thread, the case-control studies do in fact control for criminal history. So it looks like you are 0-for-2 in terms of criticism.

Oh, and as if you hadn't made enough of a fool of yourself already, that study hosted on the IANSA webpage was published in a peer-reviewed journal. IANSA is just the place where the pdf file is hosted. Did you seriously not understand that? Wow! Make that 0-for-3.

PS: did you check out the link about ceteris paribus yet? Even if you are determined to keep your head plugged in the sand, it would probably be a good concept for you to read up about, just so you don't make such a fool of yourself with your "more guns, less crime" bumper sticker. That is, if you ever want to visit the reality based community.

[4th law of robotics]

160. . . . .

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

In this paper I propose a new way to measure
gun ownership at both the state and county levels on an annual basis.
Specifically, I argue that state- and county-level sales data for one of the
nation’s largest gun magazines, Guns & Ammo, provide a much more
accurate way to measure both the level and the change in gun ownership
within an area.

So this study does not measure the actual number of guns in a region. But rather uses a proxy that he believes is correlated. And one of the measures he uses to test this correlation is to compare rate of magazine purchases to gun deaths. So his model for predicting the number of guns (to see if they lead to more deaths) is validated in part by comparing that to the number of deaths.

He used the variable he's measuring to validate his methods. You can't do that.

Does not separate suicide from homicide. And does not differentiate legal from illegally owned guns.


http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Measures gun ownership by suicide rates.

IANSA.org is an anti gun organization.

For someone who accuses everyone else of repeating NRA talking points you sure are eager to reference an advocacy group of your own when you feel it convienent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

Makes no attempt to control for relevant variables (the US has both higher murder rates and higher gun ownership rates than the netherlands. Is that the only difference between our two countries?) also makes no mention of legal versus illegal and doesn't attempt to differentiate legal from illegal usage.

So yeah, all the points people keep telling you about your flawed studies. But you won't realize this because I doubt you got past reading the titles of those studies.

Again, this

[DanTex]

164. LOL. This is getting good!

I like it when the gun fanatics try to read scientific papers and attempt to deny the science! It's almost as good as watching creationists try to explain away the fossil record.

He used the variable he's measuring to validate his methods. You can't do that.

Completely false. He validates his proxy variable in a several different ways completely independently of the effect on homicides. Read more carefully.

Does not separate suicide from homicide.

100% false. Are you just making this up as you go? I have no idea where you get this idea.

Measures gun ownership by suicide rates.

Actually, it measures gun ownership using the fraction of suicides committed by gun, which is a widely accepted and well-validated proxy for gun ownership, something you would know if you were not utterly clueless about gun violence research. Again you are 100% wrong. Are you even trying?

IANSA.org is an anti gun organization.

LOL. IANSA is just where the PDF file is hosted. The paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Lifestyle Medecine. I mean seriously, this level of cluelessness is a rare thing....

Makes no attempt to control for relevant variables (the US has both higher murder rates and higher gun ownership rates than the netherlands. Is that the only difference between our two countries?) also makes no mention of legal versus illegal and doesn't attempt to differentiate legal from illegal usage.

It is true that these are uncontrolled analyses, in contrast to the other studies which are controlled for various other factors. However, the statistical significance tests here are still valid, and there are no other really plausible explanations for the fact that the US has higher homicide rates but our rates of violent crime are about average. This is the instrumentality effect that criminologists have observed for years -- guns don't make people commit more crimes, but those crimes are more likely to turn lethal.

As far as the legal versus illegal usage, this is a total non-sequitor. The point of the study is that higher rates of civilian gun ownership leads to higher rates of homicide, period.

[4th law of robotics]

167. So your reponse to every valid criticism is either

"nu uh!" or "doesn't matter cuz I said so!".

Do you really not understand why people don't take you seriously?

[DanTex]

169. LOL. Dodge. Thanks for playing!

Actually, my main response is that you are simply making things up, and that you obviously don't understand the statistical methods, including the use and validation of proxy variables.

If you think that the proxy variables weren't validated, then you simply haven't read the studies. I don't know how else to put this. Do you really think that the study would have made it through peer review if the author hadn't validated the proxy variable? Really?

Anyone who reads the studies will immediately find out that you are 100% wrong. What else do you want me to say? You are making things up off the top of your head!

Do you really not understand why people don't take you seriously?

Well, you don't take me seriously, but you are a gun fanatic without much scientific literacy. The studies I cite have been taken very seriously by top social scientists and gun violence researchers. And I can guarantee that none of the criticisms you have made have been taken seriously by anyone, because they are not just wrong, but simply false.

[4th law of robotics]

171. We have another poster that

believes he is a genius, uses condescension in place of logic and has a in every post.

Interesting . . .

[DanTex]

173. Dodge again. Have you read up on proxy variables yet?

[4th law of robotics]

175. Pro-tip

if you want to be taken seriously as this scientific genius you pretend you are then perhaps lay off the smilies.

Notice how many were in your (flawed) scientific papers?

[DanTex]

177. Dodge yet again.

So that's it, huh. You make a false claim about validation of proxy variables, and when I point out that you are 100% mistaken, now you run and hide. Very nice!

[4th law of robotics]

178. "dodge"

[DanTex]

180. Still dodging. Whatever you do, make sure you don't try and make a substantive point!

Substance is your enemy! As long as you dodge the content, you can try to save face.

But at the end of the day, I have presented four peer reviewed studies from top gun violence researchers, and you have utterly failed to make a single cogent critique.

It's fun to watch you fall apart, though!

[4th law of robotics]

182. "fall apart"

[DanTex]

184. Still dodging! Still waiting for you to respond about those proxy variables!

Remember the proxy variables? The last point you tried to make before you melted down?

[4th law of robotics]

187. "melted down"

[DanTex]

188. Still dodging! Proxy variables, peer reviewed studies. Any of that ring a bell?

[ellisonz]

136. Correlation, not causation. n/t

[Clames]

74. You provided garbage.

Two half baked studies (IANSA? LOL) written and/or funded by known anti-gun groups. Apparently the word "credible" isn't in your personal vocabulary either. The CDC calls bullshit on your "peer reviewed" studies. Oh wait, are you going to say the CDC isn't reliable too? Sure you are

[DanTex]

82. LOL. Keep that head in buried in that sand!

Out of curiosity, do you deny in science across the board, or just when the results are politically inconvenient? How do you feel about global warming? Evolution?

The CDC doesn't "call bullshit" on anything. The only reason you don't find the peer-reviewed science to be credible is because it conflicts with your political beliefs. These studies have been peer-reviewed, and are credible to anyone outside the NRA bubble. Calling something "garbage" is not a refutation.

And by the way, IANSA is just the web page hosting the pdf document. That study was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medecine, which is a peer-reviewed journal. Details, I know. It's much easier to just believe whatever the NRA tells you, but I recommend trying to think for yourself from time to time....

[rDigital]

84. "Peer Reviewed" garbage is still garbage. Everyone has an axe to grind, especially those in your

"studies".

In other news:
"Look mommy, he's using the evolution/global warming attack again!"

Your posts reek of desperation. A new line of attack is in order.

[DanTex]

109. LOL. Now that was truly funny! A gun fanatic claiming to understand science!!!

You didn't answer my question. Do you deny science across the board, or just where it is politically inconvenient?

Because you don't even bother and attempt to make any substantive criticism of the research, and just go straight for boilerplate denialism (e.g. "the peers are a bunch of pseudo-scientific loons&quot . So I figure you don't really care about the "sciency" part of science, and just pick the conclusions that validate your worldview. Am I right?

PS "understanding" is one word. Looks like science isn't the only area where you are weak.

[Clames]

117. I did answer your question. You just don't read very well.

Which is common problem among pseudo-intellectuals but that is another topic. Quoting a Hemenway study makes you about as credible as if you had quoted something by LaPierre. Such obvious bias and you lap up every bit of it...

As for that hit piece by Dr. Hemenway you posted. Something tells me you didn't even read the study in-depth. That's right, you posted a study about the risk of having a gun inside the home and the study uses information from the NCVS that only covers crimes that happened outside of the home. I'll let you give yourself a headache in the attempt to process how idiotic that study is and how utterly worthless it makes your arguments. The author of that study states several times that the data on DGU is extremely unreliable yet somehow is able to state with certainty that one is X-times more likely to be injured in an assault or use it for suicide than use it for self-defense. No fucking way anyone could be that clueless yet Dr. Hemenway basically stated that his built his framework on a pile of crap data. Whole thing reeks of cherry picking and you bought in to it like you thought it was a winning lottery ticket. Next time you go harping on the validity of "peer-review" and how those of us on the pro-rights side lack scientific understanding it would behoove you to at least attain some basic level reading comprehension and actually apply it.

[DanTex]

118. So what's the answer? You deny science across the board?

Quoting a Hemenway study makes you about as credible as if you had quoted something by LaPierre.

Except that LaPierre is a right-wing propagandist, whereas Hemenway is a Harvard professor with an extensive publication record. Of course this means nothing to the head-in-the-sand people like you who essentially don't believe in science, but in the reality based community, there's a big difference.

That's right, you posted a study about the risk of having a gun inside the home and the study uses information from the NCVS that only covers crimes that happened outside of the home.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Hemenway study is a survey, and as such it uses a lot of different sources of information and draws from a lot of different studies. Without being specific, I have no idea which part of the study.

However, I don't know where you get the idea that NCVS only covers crimes that happened outside the home. For example, NCVS estimates the number of burglaries, which occur inside the home. So that's a decent indication that you are pretty clueless.

The author of that study states several times that the data on DGU is extremely unreliable yet somehow is able to state with certainty that one is X-times more likely to be injured in an assault or use it for suicide than use it for self-defense.

First of all, the author doesn't state anything with certainty. In fact, if you knew anything about statistical studies, you would know that they only provide estimates, with confidence intervals, etc. It's inherently probabilistic. Are you really this ignorant that you didn't even know that? I mean, this is really basic stuff.

Beyond that, estimates of the number of DGUs and estimates of the risk vs protective benefits are arrived at using entirely different means. The DGUs are typically estimated using surveys, while most of the risk/benefit analyses are based on case-control studies. Which means that the fact that survey estimates of DGUs are unreliable doesn't mean that the case-control studies are unreliable. Still with me?

No fucking way anyone could be that clueless yet Dr. Hemenway basically stated that his built his framework on a pile of crap data. Whole thing reeks of cherry picking and you bought in to it like you thought it was a winning lottery ticket. Next time you go harping on the validity of "peer-review" and how those of us on the pro-rights side lack scientific understanding it would behoove you to at least attain some basic level reading comprehension and actually apply it.

Incoherent blather. At least before you were trying to make a cogent argument, despite failing miserably.

So far, you are doing worse than the average clueless gun fanatic. And I'm speaking from experience -- I've heard a lot of clueless gun fanatics say a lot of dumb things. But you are more entertaining than average! Congrats!

[Clames]

119. I deny your brand of opinion-based science. I quite enjoy the fact-based science though.

Now that ignorant piece of sidebar is out of the way...

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Hemenway study is a survey, and as such it uses a lot of different sources of information and draws from a lot of different studies. Without being specific, I have no idea which part of the study.

Of course you have no idea, you didn't read it. Did you even bother to read those sources? It didn't occur to you that he selected data from 1992-2001 for a study written in 2011? Why not use all the available data? Why not 1992-2001 then 2002-2010 and compare the results? Did you not see he cited himself about half a dozen times? How many times was his fellow anti-gun shill Kellermann cited? Kellermann studies that were thoroughly debunked and rightfully criticized for cherry-picked data. A framework of crap build upon a foundation of garbage. Something tells me you didn't even glance at the listed citation.

First of all, the author doesn't state anything with certainty.

Tying into the "DanTex doesn't read what he posts" theme, when the author states:

"Home guns were 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

...then it is obvious he is fairly certain of something. Now, how he can justify 4x, 7x, and 11x in terms of probability over his self-admitted fact that DGU figures are extremely difficult to pinpoint is beyond anyone with a rational mind. Not so much beyond those who likewise pull their "facts" out of their posteriors though.


Once again, the anti-gun brigade prove their ineptitude by rallying around a study authored by a fellow anti-gun nut that uses unreliable data to come to a predetermined "conclusion". Integrity doesn't inconvenience such a group to be certain...

[DanTex]

120. Lordy. It just keeps getting worse...

Of course you have no idea, you didn't read it. Did you even bother to read those sources? It didn't occur to you that he selected data from 1992-2001 for a study written in 2011? Why not use all the available data? Why not 1992-2001 then 2002-2010 and compare the results? Did you not see he cited himself about half a dozen times? How many times was his fellow anti-gun shill Kellermann cited? Kellermann studies that were thoroughly debunked and rightfully criticized for cherry-picked data. A framework of crap build upon a foundation of garbage. Something tells me you didn't even glance at the listed citation.

This is because it's a survey paper. Do you seriously not understand that? It surveys a lot of different studies, which in turn use a lot of different data sets. So, when he presents a table of data taken from a 2003 study, that data will be from, umm, before 2003. Some of the studies are older, some more recent. I have no idea what point you are trying to make except for trying to grasp at whatever you can think of in order to deny the science.

And yes, he cites himself, because he has done a lot of research in the area. He also cites a lot of other studies: overall there are about 100 citations. And by the way, despite the fact that all NRA bots love to hate Kellermann, he is also a highly regarded researcher with an extensive publication record, and virtually all the criticism from the illiterate gun bloggers you've read is simply garbage that would never make it anywhere near a peer review. You see, in the NRA bubble you get to ignore all of the science you don't like, but the real world doesn't work that way...

Home guns were 4 times more likely to be involved in an accident, 7 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense."

...then it is obvious he is fairly certain of something. Now, how he can justify 4x, 7x, and 11x in terms of probability over his self-admitted fact that DGU figures are extremely difficult to pinpoint is beyond anyone with a rational mind. Not so much beyond those who likewise pull their "facts" out of their posteriors though.

LOL. Those ratios are the empirical results of data collected in one particular study, which examined gunshot injuries of different kinds in three different cities. It didn't count all gun crimes, nor did it count all self-defense uses, nor does it claim to. It only counted gunshot wounds. This is plainly obvious from the text, and if you didn't understand that, you are even more clueless than I had previously imagined.

Anyway, in case you missed in last time the DGU estimates use a different methodology than the case-control studies. Are we clear yet? So that means that the fact that survey-based DGU estimates are unreliable doesn't affect the accuracy of case-control studies analyzing net risks versus benefits. Please tell me this isn't too complicated for you...

[Clames]

121. Getting worse is your understanding of basic mathematics.

Some of the studies are older, some more recent. I have no idea what point you are trying to make except for trying to grasp at whatever you can think of in order to deny the science.

The obvious point is that a proper researcher won't cherry pick data sets to support a foregone conclusion. You seem to support that type of research since it in the only type of research that spins reality into a distorted form you can accept. Fact is, he left out nearly a decade's worth of studies and information which, if you actually read those studies that occurred after CCW laws had become very widespread over the last 7 year, probably would have shown an entirely different result. Objectivity is another sore point for you it seems.

LOL. Those ratios are the empirical results of data collected in one particular study, which examined gunshot injuries of different kinds in three different cities.

Yes, that is called cherry picking. So nice of you to finally figure that out. Never mind the fact that one particular study was grossly misleading and poorly conducted to a point that even the authors never bothered to defend it in later years. Your next trick is for you to figure out a way to wade out of the pile of bullshit you've gotten yourself into. Good luck...

[rDigital]

122. Those with a fear of instruments have more of a theological view on gun control than logical.

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 01:53 AM - Edit history (1)

No facts, reasons or analysis will shake their hate or their faith. They are devout, but luckily they are few and easily triumphed over.

Truth is sunlight to those types, but once the truth has stung them... then comes the personal attacks and insults trying to paint you as a troglodyte who doubts evolution/globalWarming/the second coming of Sarah Brady.

[DanTex]

124. Funny you bring up "theological view" when you are the one denying the empirical evidence.

If you have an intellectually cogent argument against the peer-reviewed science, I'd love to hear it. But you don't. You are just another scientific illiterate denialist that ignores scientific evidence that doesn't support your political views. Inside the NRA bubble this stuff works great, but when it comes to the reality based community, you are, in fact, pretty much indistinguishable from a "troglodyte who doubts evolution and global warming", as you put it.

It's all about the empirical evidence, and it's not on your side.

[rDigital]

126. Well that's just like your opinion, man. You're peer-reviewed tripe is "peer reviewed" by people

who all have the same axe to grind. Peer reviewed doesn't make it fact. Not only that, but every time I bring up Russia having a 3x higher overall murder rate than the U.S. despite having no legal handguns you lose your mind and say they aren't industrialized enough to be compared to the U.S.

Industrialized Russia: http://englishrussia.com/2012/09/13/iron-birds-in-the-clear-sky/ Looks pretty industrialized to me...

You lose your mind because that one little fact shoots a million holes in your little theories about firearms. RUSSIA. It's the people, silly.

Not to mention that due to the U.S.'s relatively recent history of slavery combined with ongoing racial oppression, we are much more comparable to developing countries when it comes to violent crime rates. Logic fail for your camp on that one too.

Pseudo-intellectual doublespeak is all that I am seeing in your posts. You're just trying soooo hard to look like a smarty pants, and sadly failing at it. It's not to appear smart on the internet, you have all of the time in the world to construct your posts. Try harder next time, Sweetie.

The hard numbers don't lie, an inordinately small amount (.0035%) of guns are ever used to murder another human, but you try and make it sound like an epidemic when it's not even close. http://www.democraticunderground.com/117265861

You crank up the elitism and try to lord over the other posters here, but instead end up sounding like a child who is whining because he's losing at checkers.

[DanTex]

127. LOL. Russia? Again?

This last post of yours is further validation of my claim that you are, in fact, the equivalent of global warming deniers and creationists, who make the precisely the same kinds of "axe to grind" excuses in order to ignore scientific evidence.

About Russia. Looking at cool pictures is fun, but when you grow up you might instead turn to measures such as the Human Development Index, per capita GDP, life expectancy, etc. Russia is simply not in the same category as nations like the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Australia, etc., all of which have significantly tighter gun laws and far lower homicide rates than the US. Using Russia's homicide rate to argue against gun control is just as dumb as using their life expectancy to argue against single-payer healthcare.

About the "deaths per gun". The hard number is 30,000 gun deaths every year in the US, far greater on a per capita basis than any other developed nation, and far more than the total number of Americans killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9-11 combined. The number of "deaths per gun" is an irrelevant and transparent attempt to hide the extent of the gun violence epidemic. Kind of like saying that gee, AIDS kills some 20,000 or so Americans per year, but, hey, if you divide that by the total number of individual AIDS viruses, the number of "deaths per virus" is some tiny fraction. Who cares?

And this is why there are no scientifically literate people in the NRA bubble. Sure, you can call me names, and you can entertain your fellow pro-gunners with useless statistics and NRA talking points, but none of that adds up to a credible argument that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

[rDigital]

135. Cool numbers, bro.

30,000 doesn't include suicides does it?

[DanTex]

139. Dodge. LOL. What happened to "Russia" and "deaths per gun".

Ahh, yet another gun fanatic ducking away from yet another losing argument. It was entertaining though. The "Russia" argument I've heard from some other NRA mouthpieces in the past, but I think I have to give you credit for the "deaths per gun" nonsense. That was original!


Yes, 30,000 gun deaths a year. Roughly 20,000 suicides, 10,000 homicides, and about 500 to 1,000 accidents. For a point of comparison, the total number of deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9-11 is about 10,000, the number of US deaths in the worst year of the Vietnam war was 16,000, and the total for all of Vietnam was just under 60,000. So, every two years, guns kill more Americans than died in all of Vietnam.

This is why, statistically speaking, gun control is a very important topic. Avoiding senseless wars and preventing more terrorist attacks is important, but if we could get our gun violence rates down in line with Western Europe, we would be saving far more lives.

[rDigital]

142. Nice try.

You have to obfuscate and bs to "prove" that you are right. Russia is an incredibly valid point, that's beyond dispute. As far as deaths per gun and all of that, I don't need to cook the books like you do. I get my numbers right from the FBI like everyone else. Did you know that you are 4x more likely to be punched and kicked to death than be killed by a rifle of any kind? Silly Dan, facts are for everyone.

You were trying to lump suicides in with homicide through ....more obfuscation to confuse the lay man, it's ok though because Dan knows whats best for everyone else and isn't afraid to enforce his will on you. Guns obviously create suicide and that's why gun free Japan's suicide rate absolutely dwarfs ours (31,690 in 2010 that's 25 per 100k compared with 11.8 per 100k for the U.S.) Japan has more deaths from suicides total than our total gun deaths in a year and have about 1/3 of our total population....WOW! Such big lies you have, grandma!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/japan-suicide-rate-still-_n_831430.html

I know....I know... DON'T LOOK...the fact are burning my eyes!!! Make it stop!


Silly rabbit, it's not the guns, it's the people. Guns are inanimate objects. Don't worry, I know this is a hard one to get over, but we'll get through this together, brother.

Oh and you do cherry pick. It's quite easy to see. I'll take a little bit of this that supports my "conclusion" and ignore the rest of that. A pinch of this and a little bit of lies. A little obfuscation, blatant falsehoods and some clever ommisions...then I'll ignore the entire history of slavery and racial opression in this country...... This pie will taste just fine, but it's baked with lies and no one is buying it.

Also, nice try at emotionalism trying to tie gun deaths to war....whilst still carrying the water for the "big suicide lie".

So go ahead, foam at the mouth and stomp your feet. I'll sit back and watch the show, sweetie.

[DanTex]

143. "Russia is an incredibly valid point, that's beyond dispute." LOL!

Sticking with the dumb argument! Incredibly valid! At least you dropped the "deaths per gun" thing. I'll have to remember that, though, it was a classic example of sheer idiocy!

Are you aware that Russia ranks below Libya, Panama, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia in the human development index. I mean, beyond pictures of airplanes, do you have any logical argument as to why Russia is a better point of comparison than Western Europe, Canada, Australia? Do you know of any social scientist that has suggested that Russia is a more appropriate comparison? Do you think that the fact that Russia has a low life expectancy is a good argument against single payer healthcare? Or are you only cherry-picking Russia because it's the only example you can find of a country with high homicide and strict gun laws?

You were trying to lump suicides in with homicide through

The fact of the matter is that there is extensive evidence that gun availability contribute to suicide rates. Once again it is the NRA crazies against the scientific community. The Hemenway study I posted, and Harvard School of Public health has some good info about this, but the following chart is a good starting point:

gun free Japan's suicide rate absolutely dwarfs ours

Yes, I get that Japan has a high suicide rate. This is because guns are just one factor, not the only factor. Nobody is claiming that you can predict the suicide rate exactly based on the number of guns. As I was discussing with ellisonz above, the whole concept of multivariate analysis, that there can be more than one factor involved, always seems mindboggling to the gun loons. Japan has a high suicide rates for cultural reasons. If they had a lot of guns, there is little doubt that their suicide rate would be even higher.

As I've pointed out many times before, there is a significant body of scientific and statistical research on this. The fact that you choose to ignore it all doesn't change that. You are, in fact, exactly like a global warming denier that picks out a few scattered and useless statistics (e.g. "deaths per gun&quot , makes some preposterous arguments (Russia LOL), and ignores the scientific evidence. I don't know what it is about gun fanatics and their aversion to science, but pictures of airplanes are no substitute for rigorous and systematic analysis of data.

[rDigital]

144. So many characters to say so little. Ignore the inconvenient truths, keep your head in the sand.

[DanTex]

145. Dodge. LOL. Always a good time!

Still searching for a gun fanatic who can logically defend his/her NRA talking points!

But this was fun. I'll have to remember your greatest hits...
"Russia"
"deaths per gun"

ETA: I almost forgot! "Check out this airplane that was built in Russia"!

[rDigital]

146. Because keeping people from killing themselves is really a possibility and by extension a valid

argument for gun control. 31,000+ in Japan say otherwise. It's the people, silly.

[DanTex]

147. Get back to me after you've read some of the scientific evidence.

Unless you have such an aversion to science that you're afraid to. But ignoring the science won't make it go away...
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

[rDigital]

148. I'm not arguing with the numbers of that site. I'm saying that suicide isn't a valid gun control

argument. It's grasping at straws.

[DanTex]

150. I don't really care what you think is a valid argument.

I care about the empirical evidence. Let me guess, you don't think anything is a valid gun control argument. Am I right?

[gejohnston]

151. this airplane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225_Mriya

[gejohnston]

149. you screech "you uneducated oaf" but don't explain

why or how any of it is relevant.

Are you aware that Russia ranks below Libya, Panama, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia in the human development index. I mean, beyond pictures of airplanes, do you have any logical argument as to why Russia is a better point of comparison than Western Europe, Canada, Australia? Do you know of any social scientist that has suggested that Russia is a more appropriate comparison? Do you think that the fact that Russia has a low life expectancy is a good argument against single payer healthcare? Or are you only cherry-picking Russia because it's the only example you can find of a country with high homicide and strict gun laws?

Basically, every country that has a higher murder rate than we do also has stricter laws. If you compare income inequality, we are closer to Mexico and Russia to any of the other countries. We do know that after Canada passed their 1977 law, and Australia passed their 1987 law, the murder and suicide rate did not change. Australia's murder rate was already dropping, but did not drop any sharper. While gun suicide rates dropped slightly, the suicide rate did not.

The only thing the chart actually shows is that rural areas have higher suicide rates than less rural areas. Granted, gun ownership is higher in rural areas in US, Canada, and Australia. Rural Japan, South Korea, and UK people off themselves more than their urban counterparts.

Yes, I get that Japan has a high suicide rate. This is because guns are just one factor, not the only factor. Nobody is claiming that you can predict the suicide rate exactly based on the number of guns. As I was discussing with ellisonz above, the whole concept of multivariate analysis, that there can be more than one factor involved, always seems mindboggling to the gun loons. Japan has a high suicide rates for cultural reasons. If they had a lot of guns, there is little doubt that their suicide rate would be even higher.

And US has higher murder rates because of cultural and historical reasons. And no, if Japan had gun laws like Vermont, their suicide and murder rates would not change. Do I base than on something John Lott said? No, I lived there and studied their culture and history. It is not that "gun loons can't grasp the concept of multivariante analysis" it is that you use personal attacks when asked to explain your position. Knowing how to string terms together to sound impressive doesn't mean you actually know what they are talking about. It kind of reminds me of a high school locker room, the guy who talks the most shit about how much he is getting, isn't.

[DanTex]

152. Hey, you said "uneducated oaf", not me. But since you mention...

Basically, every country that has a higher murder rate than we do also has stricter laws. If you compare income inequality, we are closer to Mexico and Russia to any of the other countries. We do know that after Canada passed their 1977 law, and Australia passed their 1987 law, the murder and suicide rate did not change. Australia's murder rate was already dropping, but did not drop any sharper. While gun suicide rates dropped slightly, the suicide rate did not.

If you really think that Mexico and Russia are better points of comparison that Canada and Western Europe, then you are entirely ignorant of what goes on outside this country. Plain and simple. I think that even you would laugh if a right-winger tried to claim that single-payer healthcare was bad because Mexico and Russia have much worse healthcare statistics than the US does. The fact that the NRA bubblers keep bringing up these preposterous comparisons is as a good a sign as any that they don't really care about any kind of honest analysis of the data, and are just trying to pick anything they can to support their political views.

As to the rest, I've already posted plenty of statistical and scientific evidence regarding both suicide and homicide rates, which has been ignored by several NRA bots, so whatever anecdotal or cherry-picked data you have is not going to impress me very much. Again, it's the NRA versus the scientific community.

And US has higher murder rates because of cultural and historical reasons.

As usual, you have no evidence to back what you are claiming. The NRA talking point that the US is a uniquely violent country is a myth. Our overall crime rates are in line with Western Europe and Canada etc. It's just homicide where we are about 4X worse. If the "violent history of repression" were the real reason, then it would show up as higher rates of violent crime across the board. Combined with the rest of the evidence linking guns to homicide rate, it is clear that guns are a major reason for the homicide differential.

And no, if Japan had gun laws like Vermont, their suicide and murder rates would not change.

Again, the evidence is not on your side. You can, of course, simply assert that the moon is made of plastic if you want, but there is extensive scientific evidence that you are ignoring here.

It kind of reminds me of a high school locker room

Come to think of it, I haven't really encountered ignorance like you find in the gungeon since high school at least. I don't think anyone I knew in college would be dumb enough to think that Mexico and Russia were more appropriate comparisons to the US than Canada and Western Europe.

[gejohnston]

155. yes you did, just not that exact term

No country is better or worse point of comparison. Each country has its own specific issues where GDP etc. is irrelevant, as Euromutt explained before
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=68563

And while American and Jamaican society aren't directly comparable, Jamaica actually plays a major role in the big picture. By dint of being a transshipment point for South American cocaine, Jamaican gangs have been involved in the illicit drug trade since the late 1960s, and the "posses" and the "Yardies" (to use the US and UK idiom, respectively) have influenced the way black drug gangs operate since then, to the extent that the London Metropolitan Police Service has a special unit, Operation Trident, to deal with black-on-black gun violence because it constitutes the bulk of gun violence in the UK. As it does in the US, it might be noted: young black males are disproportionately represented among both perpetrators and victims of homicide, and this is not a coincidence. They are the demographic most likely to be involved in the trade in illicit drugs, a business in which disputes are usually settled in blood, and as a result become inured to violence as a means of resolving any conflict. The notion that it's not merely acceptable, but indeed required, to kill someone for showing you "disrespect" is one that finds its origins in the "government yards" of western Kingston.

. I know much more about what goes on outside of the US, and have been outside of the US much more than you probably have. Your health care comparison is a red herring. It is ignored because when you compare before and after, actual experimentation if you well, does not back up any of these studies. We are not even talking about the "scientific community" as a whole.

How about actually living and traveling abroad, and learning? I seriously don't think anyone actually has done such a study. It is a matter of living there, reading their literature, studying their history. Things that doesn't involve sitting around the community college round table and pontificating on things you don't actually understand, but pretend you do.
What evidence do you have "violent history of repression" be across the board? The higher percentage would be where those repressed people are and mostly among that historically repressed population. Guess what, that is the case. If guns or gun laws were a major reason, then USVI should have a lower murder rate than Vermont and Wyoming. Vermont and Wyoming should be higher than Hawaii.

I lived there and know more about their culture and history than you do.

I honestly don't think you have been to college, or did very well if you went. Going back to school after I retired from the Air Force I had a "WTF" eye opener. If you went, those folks in your college, one never traveled, probably couldn't find half the countries on a map, and have no grasp on the differences and similarities of our crime problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg

[DanTex]

156. Well, if the shoe fits...

No country is better or worse point of comparison.

Please tell me you are joking.

I know much more about what goes on outside of the US, and have been outside of the US much more than you probably have.

Your health care comparison is a red herring. It is ignored because when you compare before and after, actual experimentation if you well, does not back up any of these studies. We are not even talking about the "scientific community" as a whole.

Not it isn't. It is a straightforward illustration of why trying to compare the US to Russia or Mexico is absurd. Of course, that comparison is so absurd that it doesn't need further illustration. That is the reason that nobody outside the NRA bubble thinks it is appropriate. It's 100% scientifically illiterate buffoons.

What evidence do you have "violent history of repression" be across the board? The higher percentage would be where those repressed people are and mostly among that historically repressed population. Guess what, that is the case. If guns or gun laws were a major reason, then USVI should have a lower murder rate than Vermont and Wyoming. Vermont and Wyoming should be higher than Hawaii.

See, this is what I was talking about with the multivariate analysis. I love being proved right. For the 1,000,000th time, there are multiple factors that drive homicide rates, which is why you can't predict exactly what the homicide rate will be based on gun availability. But, as many statistical analyses have shown, there is a significant positive influence of guns on homicide rate.

As far as the international comparison, you completely ignored my argument. If the US were truly a uniquely violent place then we would have high rates of violent crime across the board. But we don't. Just homicide. You seem to have a hard time keeping on point. Or maybe you are playing dumb on purpose in order to avoid responding to arguments that you have no answer for.

I honestly don't think you have been to college, or did very well if you went.

Keep 'em coming!

[gejohnston]

157. read my edit,

and try to keep up.

As far as the international comparison, you completely ignored my argument. If the US were truly a uniquely violent place then we would have high rates of violent crime across the board. But we don't. Just homicide. You seem to have a hard time keeping on point. Or maybe you are playing dumb on purpose in order to avoid responding to arguments that you have no answer for.

because your argument is nonsense. I never said the US was uniquely violent. We are talking specifically talking about murder.

Actually not that many studies, but you seem to have a nice collection of the ones that exist, although probably quite selective.

[DanTex]

158. Wow, you really don't get it.

If there were some other reason (e.g. "culture", the drug war, the history of slavery, whatever other excuses the NRA bots come up with) besides guns to explain why US has homicide rates are 4X to 5X the rest of the developed world, it would also show up in other kinds of violent crime. But it doesn't. The fact that you are only talking about homicide doesn't mean you just get to ignore this.

It is well known outside the NRA bubble that guns don't have too much of an effect on overall crime rates, but the have a significant effect on homicide rates specifically. This is because conflicts involving guns are much likely to result in homicide than conflicts or crimes committed with other weapons. The international comparison is only a small part of the evidence for this, but the fact that this exact pattern is what shows up internationally further shows that guns are playing a major role.

[gejohnston]

159. I get it very well

If there were some other reason (e.g. "culture", the drug war, the history of slavery, whatever other excuses the NRA bots come up with) besides guns to explain why US has homicide rates are 4X to 5X the rest of the developed world, it would also show up in other kinds of violent crime. But it doesn't. The fact that you are only talking about homicide doesn't mean you just get to ignore this.

How so?

It is well known outside the NRA bubble that guns don't have too much of an effect on overall crime rates, but the have a significant effect on homicide rates specifically.

It is? So, why are automatic weapons used more often in Europe than in the US?

The international comparison is only a small part of the evidence for this, but the fact that this exact pattern is what shows up internationally further shows that guns are playing a major role.

Then assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder should be about the same.

Maybe it is something as simple as drinking too much soda and not enough beer and wine
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/25/soda-may-cause-violence-i_n_1031525.html

[DanTex]

163. Umm....

How so?

Because it is implausible that these other explanations would specifically increase homicide rates, without comparably affecting rates of things like assault and robbery. What happens in the US is not more violent crimes. It is that the violent crimes are more likely to end up lethal, because it is more likely that a gun is involved.

It is?

Yes.

So, why are automatic weapons used more often in Europe than in the US?

This is a total non sequitor. Machine guns are only used for a tiny fraction of crimes in Europe, and have little effect on the statistics.

Then assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder should be about the same.

This is another complete non-sequitor. I have no idea what you are talking about.

[gejohnston]

189. not quite

see my last statement, if there are more deaths only because of more guns, then their attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon rates should be the same as ours

not an answer

they are used more often than here, that's the point

see above.

[DanTex]

190. Yes, and the assault rates are similar to ours. Not nearly as far out of line as homicide.

Don't know about attempted murder, or even whether there is international data about that. The data I've seen has been on things like assault, burglary, homicide, robbery. And it is entirely consistent with the instrumentality hypothesis: people don't get assaulted more in the US than in Europe, but they get killed more often because more of the assaults occur with guns.

[gejohnston]

192. over generalization

and they don't have nearly drug and organized crime problem either. The murder rate is higher because people intend to kill people more here. If the instrumentality hypothesis actually offered the answer, I would think we would have had a higher murder rate in the 1950s, when you could buy a gun mail order from Sears, no FFL required.
Attempted murder would be the more important one to look at. If the rates are similar to homicide rates instead of the other rates, then there is a problem with your hypothesis.
Burglary is irrelevant because it is not really a violent crime, unless it is a home invasion or "hot burglary" which is more common in Canada and UK than here.

[DanTex]

193. Not necessarily.

It would be interesting to look at attempted murder, but I don't think those statistics exist. UCR doesn't have them even for the US. Besides, even if you did get data, this is the kind of thing that would be highly sensitive to different legal systems, based on what the standard is for proving that someone intended to kill someone else.

But I don't think it's necessary. Most murders, in the US at least, probably wouldn't qualify as "attempted murder". If I am robbing you and you make a move and I shoot you, if you die it's murder, but if you don't die that's not attempted murder. If we get into an argument and I pull a gun and shoot you, same thing.

So looking at robbery and assault rates should give you a pretty good idea. Of course, here again there is the problem of different countries defining assault in different ways. Still, here is data I found for a few countries:
US
Robbery 115.3 Assault 250.9 Homicide 4.2
UK
Robbery 137.9 Assault 664.4 Homicide 1.2
Canada
Robbery 89.4 Assault 161 Homicide 1.6
Germany
Robbery 58.5 Assault 626.8 Homicide 0.8
France
Robbery 180.6 Assault 309.7 Homicide 1.1

As you can see, the US has not just the highest homicide rate, but also the highest ratio of Homicide/Assault and Homicide/Robbery. Interestingly, Canada has a relatively high homicide rate and also a relatively high gun homicide rate, which is at least partially explained by its proximity to the US: most handguns used in crimes in Canada come from the US.

[gejohnston]

194. how many of their robberies are guns used

compared to ours? Or murders for that matter? In Canada, guns are used in only one third of their murders. But then, their gang problems are much different than ours. It still does not establish cause. The statistics doesn't look that much different when Canada's gun laws, on balance, were just as if not laxer than ours (before 1977, they were slightly stricter on pistols but laxer on machine guns, 14 year olds could buy ammo. Today, one can buy some ammo at 12 with a minors permit.)
Do you have statistics from RCMP or ATF where Canadian crime guns come from? Many are smuggled into the US, but the AK looking rifle used in a recent assassination attempt (of the Quebec Premier) certainly was not. CZ makes that rifle specifically for the Canadian market and is not available in the US.

[DanTex]

195. Don't know about gun robberies in Canada. I've seen 40% for the percent of Canada's murders by gun

True, this alone doesn't establish causality. For that you have to look at the totality of the evidence. Still, the data is very consistent with both the instrumentality hypothesis and also an increase in homicide in Canada due to the proximity of easily trafficked illegal handguns from the US. In most European countries, the fraction of homicides by gun is less than Canada.

BTW, the gang explanation for murders in the US is overblown. Not saying it's not a problem, but UCR counts the number of gang-related homicides at under 1,000 per year. I've seen estimates as high as 2,000, but that is still a small fraction of the total.

Here's some data about gun traces from Canada.

The Firearms Tracing and Enforcement Program (FATE) was established in 1994 in
response to a requirement that all Ontario Police services would be required to trace
seize firearms not registered in Canada:
o In 2007, FATE traced 705 crime guns, 90% of which were prohibited (399) and
restricted (237)
o In 590 traces involving accused persons, 84 involved identified gang members
o Gang members found in possession of crime guns belonged to 46 different gangs
o Sources of traced crime guns:
 490 (69%) traced to U.S.
 74 (10.5%) traced to Canadian dealer
 78 were too old to trace and 60 could not be traced due to lack of
information.

http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/policeservices/shareddocs/specialreport-illegal-movement-firearms.pdf

[gejohnston]

196. what increase of murders in Canada?

Canada's murder rate follows the same sine wave as ours, drops when ours drops and climbs when ours climbs. The statistic I saw was 32 percent.
The ATF disclaimer on page two is worth reading
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/trace-data/international/2007-2011-canada-trace-data.pdf
Most of European illegal guns come from the same place the drugs do, follows the same trade routes. To a large degree, the same people who smuggle guns into Canada also smuggle the drugs. If you know where to buy a bag of pot in Germany or the UK, you know where to get an illegal gun. Since you can get an SMG for the same price as a pistol, without added penalty for its use, that is why they use them more than we do.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
Biker gangs in Australia make Sten and Owen SMGs in clandestine factories. A Sten can be made in a bicycle shop.

Traced to the US means what? According to the ATF, most Canadian crime guns were US made.
here is a detail that is not consistent with your hypothisis

In 2007, FATE traced 705 crime guns, 90% of which were prohibited (399) and
restricted (237)

why so few unrestricted weapons? Now one could say they were an unrestricted converted to prohibited (by taking a hacksaw to the barrel) or were they prohibited weapons imported or just unregistered and unlicensed prohibited weapons
(there are three major types of licenses in Canada: unrestricted, restricted, and prohibited. Prohibited license is for grandfathered weapons that have been banned for private ownership. Pre 1977 machine guns for example.)

The ultimate test is the before and after, can it be verified by experimentation. Can't find a case of murder or suicide rate dropping due to stricter gun laws.

[DanTex]

197. I meant increase relative to UK, Germany, France, etc.

The ATF disclaimer on page two is worth reading

Yes, but the data I presented wasn't from the ATF, but from Canadian authorities.

The ultimate test is the before and after, can it be verified by experimentation. Can't find a case of murder or suicide rate dropping due to stricter gun laws.

There is no single "ultimate" test. The ultimate test is the totality of the evidence. Also, nothing can be really be verified by experimentation -- to really perform a controlled experiment, you'd have to create two separate worlds, and change the law in one world but not the other. Policy analysis is always messy in this way.

If you're looking for homicide rate dropping after gun control, one obvious example is the Brady Bill, which got passed right before the massive crime drop of the 90s. And there are other examples (e.g. Hawaii, Australia). Of course, that doesn't establish causality, it could just have been a coincidence -- I don't think anyone believes the Brady Bill is responsible for all or even most of the drop in crime that occurred in the years after it was passed. That's one problem with before/after: since it's just one datapoint, it's hard to claim statistical significance.

Another problem with the before/after thing is that most changes in gun policy in the last 50 or so years have been incremental, which means that whatever effects are likely to be masked by other trends, like with the Brady Bill. And then there is the fact that the effects of policy changes can take a long time to kick in.

I prefer to look at all the evidence and then pick the most likely explanation.

[gejohnston]

198. In Australia

violent crime was already dropping and continued on the same trajectory, so not really. Can't find when Hawaii passed its licensing law, but their drop is the same as everyone else's.
No, the Brady Bill didn't really do that much. Besides, much of it was struck down a few years later and crime continued to drop. It is coincidence when you expand the time line out to 1920. Our murder rates follow a sine wave. It was lower in the 1950s, when you could mail order a gun COD, then went up in the 1960s. Canada does basically the same thing. We are at the bottom of the wave. Some day, and I hope I'm wrong, it will bottom out and increase again.

I prefer to look at all the evidence and then pick the most likely explanation.

I honestly wish I could believe that of you, but I don't. I actually don't think you look at all of the evidence. I actually don't believe that of most people. When it comes to most public policy, it is driven by ideology, personal experience and culture. Sometimes policy is driven by science, mostly when hard sciences are involved, but not so much the social sciences.

[DanTex]

123. LOL. You have zero evidence of cherry picking.

If you had, you would have presented it. I think what happened is you learned the buzzword "cherry-pick" and you figured that it would be a fun card to play in the absence of a cogent argument. I noticed that you have retreated away from specific criticisms, because like most gun loons, the more specific you get the more foolish you look. For example, at one point you were claiming that NCVS didn't cover crimes committed inside the home, which immediately identified you as clueless to anyone with the slightest clue about the scientific research on the topic.

Like the other gun fanatics that have attempted to deny the scientific evidence, you have presented zero evidence of your own, and you haven't made a single cogent criticism of any of the studies I have posted. You feel that you have debunked the Hemenway study based on one misleading criticism of a single paragraph of his paper, which only discussed one of the one hundred studies he covered in his survey. And then you claim that there are a bunch of studies that Hemenway is ignoring, but predictably you don't actually list any of these studies that he is supposedly ignoring. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because you are just making this up as you go? LOL.

The thing is, I have yet to meet a single pro-gunner who has the first clue about the very basics of the kind of statistical methods involved in these studies: for example, case-control studies and multivariate regressions. A total of zero. They always run and hide, behind generalities and smilies, like you have, in the face of a substantive argument. Granted, not all of them are quite as clueless as you are, but even the smarter ones hide behind buzzwords and transparent talking points when confronted with empirical evidence. That above all is a strong indication that there really isn't an intellectually defensible position on the pro-gun side of the debate.

[spin]

54. Probably the only reason that this report made the news ...

was because it involve the president of a pro-gun organization. It was therefore newsworthy.

Had the same incident happened to a normal citizen with a carry license it would have never been reported by the media.

For example on a cold winter Sunday morning in Tampa two of my co-workers were searching a vacant lot where a building had recently been torn down. Both were using metal detectors hoping to find some valuable items such as rings or necklaces when a guy walked up, pulled a large knife and demanded they give him their wallets.

One of my co-workers pulled back his jacket and when the mugger saw that he had a Colt .45 auto in a shoulder holster, he turned and walked away muttering to himself. My two co-workers went back to their search and didn't even bother calling the police.

Of course you will argue that this was merely a made up tale but I worked with both these guys for more than 20 years and they didn't have any tendencies to tell stories. In fact neither felt it was a big deal but was just a humorous incident that had happened.

It would have been wisest for my co-workers to contact the police after the incident as the mugger might have beat them and complained that they pulled a gun on him. However the mugger probably had a criminal record and both my co-workers had a clean record and also had a government security clearance.

Such incidences often happen and you seem to have a hard time admitting it. I will agree that a percentage of such anecdotal tales are made up but you are ignoring reality when you appear to claim all are.

Of course the reason that there is no statistical evidence of how often people in a similar situation and successfully stop an attack is that police departments have no requirement to report such cases to the FBI or DOJ or any other organization. That doesn't mean that all such stories are fabrications. It merely shows that in order to have statistics you have to have data.

[DanTex]

70. I don't know if it actually made the news. The link in the OP is to Buckeyes for Concealed Carry.

I'm aware that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about the safety benefits of carrying a gun. But I'm more interested in statistical evidence. It seems to me that a lot of CCers seem to have DGU stories where without a gun they could have been severely injured or even killed, but I don't get the sense that people who don't CC actually end up being injured or killed more frequently than CCers. So that to me indicates that most of the DGUs are actually unnecessary. And, from what I've seen, the statistical evidence supports what I've been saying.

[spin]

72. Will you at least admit ...

that data is necessary for statistics. Since no hard data is available on DGUs than it's impossible to form any conclusions. It simply becomes speculation. A factual study would be very helpful but I doubt if it will happen due to the expense and difficulty in gathering reliable data.

I mentioned an admittedly anecdotal tale about my two co-workers in Tampa. The guy who was legally carrying the .45 auto was also a black belt in Karate. If he had been unarmed and refused to give up his wallet the mugger might have attacked and my co-worker could have disabled him. My friend was armed and his decision to show his weapon defused the situation effectively. No one was hurt and perhaps the mugger learned a valuable lesson. Someone could have been cut, the mugger might have been severely injured by a karate kick or blow or both if the mugger decided to attack. The incident then would have got the attention of the police and would have been reported for statistics.

Let's suppose that 50% of the DGU incidents we hear of is simple bullshit, That would mean that 50% are fact. Obviously it is foolish to argue that a person with a legally concealed weapon is NEVER able to use it to stop a violent attack. The number of such incidents may be questionable but they do happen.

If an individual with a legally concealed weapon avoids a violent encounter by showing his weapon, I will agree that that doesn't necessarily mean that had he simply complied and turned over his wallet the situation might have ended without injury. On the other hand it handing over your money does not always guarantee that your attacker will be satisfied.

I learned a valuable lesson years ago in a martial arts class. The instructor told the class that if situational awareness fails and you find yourself in a situation where someone demands your wallet to simply appraise your attacker. If you feel that he presents little threat and merely is after your wallet, simply give it to him. You can always replace your money, credit cards and ID. You can't replace your health as easily and if you end up six feet under it just isn't worth it.

If you believe that your attacker intends to injure or kill you no matter what you do or if after you turn over your money he does than you than you do your best to defend yourself as you have little or nothing to lose.

It's been many years since I was proficient in unarmed self defense but the lesson I learned also applies to my carrying a concealed handgun. I have absolutely no desire to ever have to shoot another person but I will in order to stop an attack.

[DanTex]

73. Of course.

It is true that there is not enough data, but that doesn't mean that the studies we have aren't "factual".

I see a lot of pro-gunners talking about how a gun is an essential safety tool, but there is not much evidence for this. Everyone, including me, acknowledges that there are some people and some circumstances where a gun provides a safety benefit. But the question is how does this benefit weigh against the additional risks, both at the individual level, but also at the societal level. And I don't think there's much doubt that, as a society, we would be better off with tighter gun laws, particularly since we could tighten the laws quite a bit (e.g. licensing and registration) without preventing people with a legitimate self-defense concern from acquiring and carrying a weapon.

[spin]

75. I can see some points we agree on. ...

For example I do firmly believe that we can improve the current gun laws in our nation in order to make them more effective.

I largely agree with Obama's position on this which he posted in an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star.

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
March 13, 2011 12:00 am • President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

I would go even further.

1) I favor expanding the NICA background check to ALL firearm sales including private sales between individuals.

2) We need to better enforce our laws and increase the legal penalties for to detect, prosecute and punish those carry ILLEGAL firearms in public.

3) Obviously the illegal sale of firearms in our nation is a problem. It would be wise to spend the necessary money to combat this activity by financing better law enforcement and also to increase the penalties for anyone involved in smuggling firearms to the inner streets of our nation or to other countries.

4) We do need to improve our mental healthcare system in our nation. The majority of the mass murders in our nation were caused by people with serious mental issues. Often these shooters have waved red flags before they ran amok but unfortunately all the warning signs were ignored.

5) We lost our War on Drugs decades ago. Perhaps we need to consider the legalization of some drugs to reduce the profit motive for the Mexican Drug Cartels. The Prohibition of Alcohol led to the development of organized crime and was also a total failure. We should try to learn from history. A high percentage of the gun violence in our nation is caused by drug gangs fighting over turf.

6) Anyone who owns a gun or buys ammo for one should have some basic safety training for firearms. Scuba divers have to have a certification card before a dive shop will fill their tanks. Perhaps anyone who purchases a firearm or buys ammo should have a similar card.

These are a few ideas which strike me as commonsense and might be possible to implement with a lot of effort. Obviously the NRA would strongly oppose most if not all.

I have no serious problem with licensing all gun owners but I would wish that anyone who was licensed would have the right to carry a concealed handgun. I believe that my idea of a certification card prior to purchasing firearms or ammunition be a lower level permit and might be somewhat easier to pass into law. Either plan would prove a challenging task to pass and most likely would fail.

I feel that the federal registration of all firearms is not only politically impossible but also a foolish "feel good" law that not only would be expensive to run but would accomplish little.

When I critique the gun control debate I believe that those who favor much strong gun control remind me of Don Quixote tilting at windmills. You have lofty and admirable goals but reality is a bitch. Of course those who strongly favor gun rights are extremely stubborn and totally unwilling to compromise. You make the task of those who support gun rights far easily because you aim too high. Pursuing more reasonable laws or improving on existing ones would strongly appeal to the general public and even gun owners.

I feel that if your side would fight to improve existing laws and try to implement ideas such as I have suggested you would find this to be far more feasible than trying to implement another assault weapons ban or to require the federal registration of all firearms.

If both sides on the debate could find some common ground we might make headway on future reducing gun violence in our nation. Of course this does involve compromise which is a lost art in our nation.

[Botany]

42. ‘white honky.’”

and this happened when? in 1973?

Please if you are going to post made up stories please @ least bring it up to the 1990s ....

"hey cracker I gotta a bump on pager and gotta fly to sell some rocks."



BTW Westland Mall?

[brush]

55. Something's wrong

Something smells fishy about this story.

[TrogL]

76. I call bullshit

[trouble.smith]

77. many CCW stories end without gunshots and 911 calls

the sight of a gun changes the dynamics of the situation. the fact is, just having the gun on you changes the dynamics of the situation. When they're scoping you out as a potential target, they're looking for fear or defiance. Those without guns exhibit fear. those with guns exhibit boldness and resolve. It's definitely noticeable.

[Trunk Monkey]

80. Am I evil if I say

I wouldn't have let it get that far before drawing?

I would have presented as soon as the words "I have a gun" came out of his mouth

[ileus]

87. Nope not at all...

[rDigital]

91. I contacted Mike and there have been some updates made to the story. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

100. well, what are the Updates?

[rDigital]

101. The uPdates have been added on to the original link. : ) nt

[jeepnstein]

116. This is all we really need to know about it...

Some people have questioned why Joe and his wife would be at Westland Mall. They are indeed Ohio State students. Those questioning their decision to go to Westland Mall are correct in stating there are many other malls in the greater Columbus area and there are many other shopping options closer to campus. Joe and Amanda had actually been at Tuttle Mall looking for a Pittsburgh Steelers shirt. They left when they didn’t find what they were looking for. They stopped at Westland Mall on their way to their home in Grove City in one last ditch effort to find a shirt.

http://ohio.concealedcampus.org/2012/09/17/buckeyes-for-concealed-carry-president-uses-handgun-to-defend-family/

A Steelers shirt? Really? Why not a University of Michigan flag and a velvet painting of Art Schlichter while he was down there?

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. They are at the link in the OP. I include them as they answer questions raised on this thread:

Some people have questioned why Joe and his wife would be at Westland Mall.

They are indeed Ohio State students. Those questioning their decision to go to Westland Mall are correct in stating there are many other malls in the greater Columbus area and there are many other shopping options closer to campus. Joe and Amanda had actually been at Tuttle Mall looking for a Pittsburgh Steelers shirt. They left when they didn’t find what they were looking for. They stopped at Westland Mall on their way to their home in Grove City in one last ditch effort to find a shirt....


Some people are questioning why the aggressor wasn’t followed or held for police to apprehend when they arrived.

A handgun is a self-defense tool only. An Ohio Concealed Handgun License allows one to carry that self-defense tool on his or her person concealed. It is not permission to behave like a police officer. Once the threat is stopped, the licenses is correct in going back to a holstered heightened state of awareness.

Had Joe pursued the aggressor and subsequently used lethal force, he would no longer be justified in a self-defense claim. Page 19 & 20 of the Ohio Attorney General’s Concealed Carry Handbook outlines the three requirements to justify lethal force in self-defense. Chasing the aggressor is escalating and would remove one of those conditions....

(Added on edit: That concealed carry handbook is available at the link below)

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/concealedcarrybook


Finally, some people are questioning the truthfulness of Joe’s story in absence of a police report and other credible news sources. They are calling us liars. They are saying we as gun rights advocates are fabricating or at least embellishing a story to support our agenda


...Amanda did indeed call 911. We’ve included a scan of the business card Deputy Cooper left with Joe. The incident is recorded as response #12-155061 in the radio room log.

No police report was filed. We do not fully understand why a report wasn’t filed. Since shots were not fired, no one was injured, no property was damaged or stolen, and the assailant had fled, we imagine the incident didn’t meet the criteria for a police report.

We also do not understand why a Franklin County Sheriff’s Deputy would respond to the call instead of a Columbus Police Officer. The Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and Columbus Police Department operate in concert under agreements similar to the Ohio State University Police and Columbus Police department’s mutual aid agreement. While the agreements are probably subject to public records requests, we have not obtained them. Regardless of how much combined patrolling or mutual aid they provide to each other, a victim can expect a five to ten minute response time...

And that last sentence explains the old saw: "When seconds count, police are minutes away."...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

105. thanks, I will delete my reply because it is now redundant.

[SecularMotion]

115. Did you ask him about his politics?

He doesn't seem to be a liberal or a Democrat.

Mike Newbern
Tuesday near Columbus, OH
Calling me a racist because I didn't vote for the black guy makes you sexist for not voting for the woman.

http://www.facebook.com/mikenewbern

[MotherPetrie]

106. This story sounds like complete and utter bullshit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Well then, do the research necessary to debunk it.

We await your rebuttal...

[jeepnstein]

113. I thought it was BS until the attacker answered his cell phone.

"I'm a gonna end you! Oh, wait just a sec., this is an important call..."

[upaloopa]

154. Like you always say. Prove it!