Originally Posted by PTT
Again, it's lies, damned lies, and people who misuse or misunderstand statistics. You fall into the last group.
Your ad hominem attacks do not eliminate the fact that there are multiple ways to manipulate data. Kellerman chooses to ignore some data (self defense) and manipulate the rest in manners that support his sponsors. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to find things that support his sponsors when conducting a study.
Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory?
Originally Posted by PTT
Really? So death isn't a health issue now?
Straw man argument. Nobody said that. I said that guns are not a health issue. Death due to guns is a crime or social issue. Not health. When the government controls access to health care as our government is currently trying to do, they will dictate lifestyle choices in exchange for access. Heck, they're trying to limit lifestyle choices right now in NY by limiting the size of soft drinks, banning trans-fats, and multiple other things the zealot in office there has mandated. If you do not see the concern of gun rights people over the government classifying guns as a health issue, you're being willfully ignorant.
Originally Posted by PTT
No, murders (you did not specify by gun, and I have no idea if your source does either) was higher than the national avarage in one, about the same in another, and lower in still another.
Read again. There were two stats provided for each area, violent crime total (which includes all murder) and gun-related murder and non-negligent homicide (which I'm pretty sure is specific to guns). It is one of the key ways the FBI delineates the data in the Uniform Crime Report, so my source did as well. It's available on the web if you'd like to peruse it.
Originally Posted by PTT
Anyone with the data, methodology, and intellectual honesty to do so in a valid manner. I'd expect that to come out of other universities, certainly: such establishments are in an almost constant state of discussion on such matters.
Actually, no. You don't seem to know much about our university system. The overwhelming majority are sponsored by the state and even the private institutions receive many millions in grants from the government. They all tend to be quite liberal/left/socialistic for the most part. So, no, I wouldn't expect any university to really combat another university on this particular issue. In fact, most social issues tend to be generally agreed upon by the universities. Was the Kellerman study done by a university? I didn't look...I thought it was an ER doctor.
Originally Posted by PTT
The nature of shooting people with a gun has changed? How do you figure that? I'll grant that the overall incidence has changed, and that a new study would be welcome, but to claim that the statistics have totally changed based on a lack of data is nonsense. The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed.
Another straw man argument. The nature of crime does indeed change as does the study of it. The incidences change and the criminals change too. My university degree is in criminology, so I'm well versed in the ever changing nature of crime. Crime is a reflection of society and society has radically changed since 1992. It's no different than quoting a study done in the '60s or 1800s. Why don't we go pull up some old phrenology studies and apply them to today, I mean, since the nature of crime hasn't changed, so surely the studies are still valid. No. Kellerman is both flawed and outdated.
Originally Posted by PTT
The point of the above graph is that choosing two sets of data in which there is even a very strong correlation does not mean that there is actually any underlying meaning between the correlation. You have to look at multiple factors before you can come to any conclusion of that ilk. That's the purpose of a multivariate study such as Kellerman's, and is one reason why your assertion that more guns = less crime is flawed. There are several others, including cherrypicking of data (what about other countries/states where there has been an increase in guns/change in crime stats?) and a lack of datapoints, meaning your margins of error are huge (you have about 20, one each year from 1992 to now).
And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless. What variables would you control for to determine how increased gun ownership, increased numbers of guns, and increased access to guns due to more liberal laws in all but one state do not affect crime rates? Especially since they have fallen every year since. I am not missing 20 years of data, I can quickly go get it for you from the FBI UCR, but honestly, I'm tired of doing simple leg work for you as you refuse to use reason and insist on using a single study from a biased source.
Originally Posted by PTT
No, you're not.
Uh, yes we are. Your little list includes all countries - most of which do not have access to guns like the US has. AND it includes suicides, not just homicides - not the subject of this debate. Your link is irrelevant. My point was in countries with easy access to large numbers of guns and we'll be nearer the bottom of any list you choose to produce on a per capita basis. Again, I'm simply tired of hunting this data down - I have posted it elsewhere (not this thread), so know that it exists somewhere...maybe tomorrow when I'm rested I'll bother.
Originally Posted by PTT
Despite your protestations, this is tinfoil hat stuff. "They"? Really? And, frankly, it's not what I am suggesting at all.
No, it's not tinfoil hat stuff; more ad hominem. I apologize for my sloppy word choice. 'They', of course, means the gun control lobby in the US - I'm sorry I assumed that was understood. They, the gun control lobby, want to remove all weapons. It is their stated goal. Organizations like the Brady Group, Gun Control Inc, and others have stated, on the record, that they want to confiscate all guns, as have many of our politicians. All guns. All. They, sorry, the gun control lobby, knows they need to do this within the legal system. The way our legal system works is largely based on yours, so you'll hopefully understand it. There must be laws passed that pass judicial scrutiny and cases brought before that successfully uphold the law to establish a legal precedent. Once established, the next "food fight" isn't over whether or not they, this time it's politicians writing laws, CAN ban certain things, the food fight is WHICH things to ban. Once the law has passed, it will be slowly accepted with the passing of time, much like your own gun control laws. The next time there is a shooting and all the assault weapons are already banned, the cry will be to go after the handguns. It is the slippery slope you always hear about. No, it's not tinfoil hat, it's history.
Henra has a good point. Most of our violent crime and gun crime occurs in major metropolitan areas. There was a link to a video several pages back that had statistics that showed controlling for population density radically altered the rates. The video noted that the overwhelming majority of violent crime and gun murders occurred in cities larger than 250,000 - these are rates, not total numbers. Much of this is gangland stuff, drug-related stuff, and it's not surprising. Growing up in Miami and having lived in at least one other major metropolitan area, I can tell you what is common sense; you stay away from certain areas. The same is true in London or Glasgow or Manchester. My point? Big cities create crime havens and many big cities are the ones with the strictest gun control (Chicago, New York, etc), so criminals aren't following the law there. I don't find that surprising, but perhaps you do.
A friend was interviewed the other day. He had a great quote the Americans will appreciate, and maybe a few others as well.
"[Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies. It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon. It’s always looming on the horizon, and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it [Second Amendment] the way they did."
--Kevin Tully, American Patriot