@ AA
Again, I'll say poppycock. Your treasured study claims, (after reassessments which confirms the author's ability to take a dataset and manipulate it), that I have a 2.7 times better chance of dying from a gun because my house has one or more. But what it does not take into account is the fact that, in an armed household the thing I'm most worried about, (the armed intruder), won't meet a happy end at the end of one of my weapons. So really your study, while it sounds wonderful, doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that if an armed intruder enters Kellerman's perfect house he's golden, if he enters an armed house his likelihood of assuming room temperature is increased infinitely.
Because that is not what the study is looking at. It's looking at the risk to [you with gun in your house] vs [you without gun in your house]. If you want something else then find a different study: you don't go to a football match and then start complaining that it's not rugby! What you are doing, though, is assuming your results.
Thus, the educated gun owner has no worry about Kellerman's mental meanderings.
And I have no issues with the suitably trained and educated gun owner, as I have said!
@ HrkDrvr
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.
Telling you that you are misusing or misunderstanding statistics is not an ad hominem. And your accusations are unfounded: you've simply stated them, not supported them.
Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory?
I linked two earlier. It would really help if you start reading the links I post for you.
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.
Measurement of death by any means is a health issue, and therefore measurement of death by guns is a health issue.
Solving issues caused by guns is a social matter, but measuring the effect is not. And, tbh, if main your issue with this is where the data is published then I suggest that you really don't have an issue.
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.
This is part of what you said
here:
King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders.
Nowhere does that mention guns. I would LOVE to peruse your data, but you've not linked it and I'm not going to go hunting it with the vaguest of detail.
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.
This does sound rather paranoid, I have to say. And I also disagree. If issues are agreed upon by people who have actually studied them then it doesn't make it a conspiracy
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.
With a degree in criminology I'd hope you'd know a little about statistics, then. How has the null hypothesis changed?
I'd also like to know why you think that was a straw man: I wasn't stating an argument for you at all there.
You keep saying Kellerman is flawed, but haven't shown how: every "reason" you've given I've provided a counter to and you've not responded.
And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless.
So you agree there is a link between the number of pirates and global warming? Or do you think that, perhaps, there is another factor which is not being looked at?
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?
That's a big question, and not one I could even start to answer without effectively beginning a proper study. There are a multitude of social, political and economic factors which have an effect on crime, so all of those would have to be controlled for.
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.
I didn't say you were missing 20 years of data, I said you only had 20 data points, one for every year. Perhaps if you were to provide links then I could look at the data myself?
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.
Incorrect. Column 3 lists homicides only, and the US is 15th on the list when ordered by homicide rate. The US does have the highest gun ownership rate in the world at 88.1 per 100 residents. Looking at OECD (so, relatively wealthy) nations only:
http://mark.reid.name/images/figures...de-vs-guns.png - picture removed because it was HUGE.
Source
Also, this:
The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing, I would Just Like to Point Out…
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.
Again, it's not ad hominem when you come across like that. Misunderstanding in terminology noted
You need to teach PTT statistical analysis.
Now who's going with the ad hominem's - glass houses
And I think you perhaps need to check up on the meaning of some of the logical fallacies you're throwing around here: they don't quite tally up with what is being said
