You guys and your guns...

[Wumbologist]

To Wumbo

Did you read the conclusion from the Branas study. Her eis the first paragraph.

"After we adjusted for numerous confounding factors, gun possession by urban adults was associated with a significantly increased risk of being shot in an assault. On average, guns did not seem to protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses can and do occur,33,57 the findings of this study do not support the perception that such successes are likely."

Not very ambiguous. if you are assaulted, and you have a gun, you increase your risk - not reduce it. While it is true that being a nasty bugger might increase your chance of being assaulted, the important point is that having a gun simply puts you more at risk - not less.

Did you read the acknowledged study limitations?

A number of study limitations deserve discussion. Our control population was more unemployed than the target population of Philadelphians that it was to intended to represent. Although we did account for employment status in our regression models and our control population was found to be representative of Philadelphians for 5 other indicators, having a preponderance of unemployment among our control participants may mildly erode our study's generalizability. It is also worth noting that our findings are possibly not generalizable to nonurban areas whose gun injury risks can be significantly different than those of urban centers like Philadelphia.64

Certain other variables that may have confounded the association between gun possession and assault were also beyond the scope of our data collection system and, therefore, were not included in our analyses. For instance, any prior or regular training with guns was a potentially important confounding variable that we did not measure and whose inclusion could have affected our findings (although the inclusion of other confounding variables possibly related to training may account for some of this unmeasured confounding).

We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault. Although our long list of confounders may have served to reduce some of the problems posed by reverse causation,65 future case–control studies of guns and assault should consider instrumental variables techniques to explore the effects of reverse causation. It is worth noting, however, that the probability of success with these techniques is low.66

Finally, our results could have been affected by misclassification of gun possession status. Because of prior discussion63 and likely levels of misclassification,54–56 we concentrated on undetected gun possession. The ensuing sensitivity analyses demonstrated odds ratio estimates that increased and decreased in statistical significance but that did not drop below 1.00, even when challenged with high levels of misclassification. Thus, even after simulating high levels of misclassification bias, a net protective effect of gun possession was not evident.

And they still did not discern lawful ownership vs illegal ownership which at its face invalidates this study as any sort of indicator of the risks to the lawful gun owner, who is sure to operate in a manner entirely different from an illegal gun owner.

[Seth]

That you don't consider a burglary taking place while people are in the residence much more serious than that of an empty house is fucking insanity made manifest.

Exactly the same crime so couldnt give a toss unless someone gets hurt .

Statistics for that however are quite interesting
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publicatio ... iew=Binary

Check page 44 table 2.04 just over a 250 000 domestic burguarlies for the last avaliable data which is high (but down 50% from 10 years ago we need more CCTV cameras) but what is interesting is the number of aggravated burglaries ie those carrying a weapon is just over 1000 which I make to be less than 0.5%. So that makes 99.5% of house occupatants better armed than a typical burgular.

Er, that's of the aggravated burglaries in which the burglar was CAUGHT and thus it was determined that they had a weapon. What about all those burglars who ARE NOT caught? You have no way of knowing what percentage of them are armed, now do you? Derp.

[SteveB]

Nibbler, the firearms I own have little to do, for the most part, with self-defence. They are tools. Like you might use a stapler to clip papers together, I use a rifle to hunt. Like you may use a hammer to nail, I use a shotgun to split wigs. Er.. yeah.

I'm using the argument specifically against pro-gun people who think that non-gun-owners somehow live in fear. That's demonstrably not true, despite much how Seth wants to spin it. His argument is akin to saying I'm deluded for not living in fear of being a victim of a very unlikely crime. No point even addressing it really. There's better ways to waste my time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nibbler, the firearms I own have little to do, for the most part, with self-defence. They are tools. Like you might use a stapler to clip papers together, I use a rifle to hunt. Like you may use a hammer to nail, I use a shotgun to split wigs. Er.. yeah.

I'm using the argument specifically against pro-gun people who think that non-gun-owners somehow live in fear. That's demonstrably not true, despite much how Seth wants to spin it. His argument is akin to saying I'm deluded for not living in fear of being a victim of a very unlikely crime. No point even addressing it really. There's better ways to waste my time.

I think you'll find that in the US most gun-owners don't give a damn what non-gun-owners worry about.

[MrJonno]

If they got ten years for burglarizing someone's home the first time, the community would be safe from that burglar for ten whole years.

If burglars got 10 years for a first offence there would be a more dead home owners. Burglars are stealing for drugs they are going to try and rob regardless of sentences, next heroin fix is going to trump any prison deterence regardless of length

[Seth]

Nibbler, the firearms I own have little to do, for the most part, with self-defence. They are tools. Like you might use a stapler to clip papers together, I use a rifle to hunt. Like you may use a hammer to nail, I use a shotgun to split wigs. Er.. yeah.

I'm using the argument specifically against pro-gun people who think that non-gun-owners somehow live in fear. That's demonstrably not true, despite much how Seth wants to spin it. His argument is akin to saying I'm deluded for not living in fear of being a victim of a very unlikely crime. No point even addressing it really. There's better ways to waste my time.

Problem is, it's not "very unlikely" that SOMEONE in your country will be the victim of violent crime. It happens every day, even in NZ. If you are satisfied to take your place as a statistic in allowing your government to disarm you so that you will be an unarmed and helpless victim of violent crime should your number come up in the crime lottery, that's fine with me. But I will not allow anyone to disarm me using the bogus statistical argument that it's "very unlikely" that I will be victimized. That reduces my status from that of a human being and free individual to that of a chattel of the government and a slave, to be ignored and disposed of as a replaceable cog in the wheel of Socialism. Not going to happen to me, ever. Regardless of what the law is, I will ALWAYS carry defensive armament on my person, because I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

We each get to make the choice whether to be armed in self defense, whether the law prohibits it or not. But it's utterly immoral and unethical for YOU to strive to make that choice for ME, either way.

Whether you live in fear largely depends on whether you have been lucky or unlucky in the crime lottery. If you've been lucky and haven't been victimized by a violent criminal, you can live in your little fantasy world without any fear, even though it's delusional denial of reality. But if you've been victimized by a violent criminal, particularly if you were victimized all the worse because you allowed your government to disarm you and thus were helpless to resist being ass-fucked by a tattooed biker gang, you'll likely feel much differently about it.

Perhaps a little anal gang-rape would cause you to reflect on your arguments a little more carefully.

[Seth]

If they got ten years for burglarizing someone's home the first time, the community would be safe from that burglar for ten whole years.

If burglars got 10 years for a first offence there would be a more dead home owners. Burglars are stealing for drugs they are going to try and rob regardless of sentences, next heroin fix is going to trump any prison deterence regardless of length

That's why in many states in the US you can shoot and kill a drug abuser who tries to victimize you using a weapon. A dead junkie costs the state a pittance to dispose of in the nearest landfill. That's where they belong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If they got ten years for burglarizing someone's home the first time, the community would be safe from that burglar for ten whole years.

If burglars got 10 years for a first offence there would be a more dead home owners. Burglars are stealing for drugs they are going to try and rob regardless of sentences, next heroin fix is going to trump any prison deterence regardless of length

Seth is in favor of larger prisons? Maybe he's planning on using one in the future.

[SteveB]

Gang rape by a bevy of beautiful women. That would definitely set me straight. Straighter.

[JimC]

[rant]Also, WTF is with the rest of the world referring to US citizens as 'Americans'? Canada, Mexico, and the many countries of South America are also 'Americans'. [/rant]

It's been that way since the early 1800s at least. I used to care about it, but don't bother now.

That's why we invented "Merkins"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[rant]Also, WTF is with the rest of the world referring to US citizens as 'Americans'? Canada, Mexico, and the many countries of South America are also 'Americans'. [/rant]

It's been that way since the early 1800s at least. I used to care about it, but don't bother now.

That's why we invented "Merkins"

I used that term here first, if you'll notice.

[Blind groper]

firearms are used successfully defensively between 80,000 and 2 million times every year (Kleck et al),

I remember a study a few years back that looked at car driving skills. One of the survey questions was:
Do you think that, as a driver, you are :
1. Excellent
2. Above average
3. Average
4. Below average
5. Poor
It was not surprising that the result was 85% reporting they were above average or excellent.

This kind of result is inevitable with that kind of question. A similar result comes from asking a gun enthusiast if he/she has ever successfully used a gun to defend him/herself or some other person. Since 90% of the population are not a rational thinkers, they will use emotional logic, which goes like this.
1. I love guns
2. Therefore guns are good
3. Therefore guns are useful
4. Therefore I have used a gun in a useful way.
So when they are asked the survey question, they will find a way, through emotional thinking, to justify their possession of guns. So we have Joe Gun-lover remembering the time he heard an alarming noise (the iron on his house roof contracting at night). He grabbed his gun and ran around looking for a burglar. Finding none he went back to bed convinced he had scared off a dangerous villain.

Anyone who believes this kind of thinking does not happen is very naive. Like the example above, with self assessment of car driving skills, gun lovers self assessments of successful self defense with a gun will be totally unreal.

[Jason]

firearms are used successfully defensively between 80,000 and 2 million times every year (Kleck et al),

I remember a study a few years back that looked at car driving skills. One of the survey questions was:
Do you think that, as a driver, you are :
1. Excellent
2. Above average
3. Average
4. Below average
5. Poor
It was not surprising that the result was 85% reporting they were above average or excellent.

This kind of result is inevitable with that kind of question. A similar result comes from asking a gun enthusiast if he/she has ever successfully used a gun to defend him/herself or some other person. Since 90% of the population are not a rational thinkers, they will use emotional logic, which goes like this.
1. I love guns
2. Therefore guns are good
3. Therefore guns are useful
4. Therefore I have used a gun in a useful way.
So when they are asked the survey question, they will find a way, through emotional thinking, to justify their possession of guns. So we have Joe Gun-lover remembering the time he heard an alarming noise (the iron on his house roof contracting at night). He grabbed his gun and ran around looking for a burglar. Finding none he went back to bed convinced he had scared off a dangerous villain.

Anyone who believes this kind of thinking does not happen is very naive. Like the example above, with self assessment of car driving skills, gun lovers self assessments of successful self defense with a gun will be totally unreal.

Just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action me thinks.

[SteveB]

firearms are used successfully defensively between 80,000 and 2 million times every year (Kleck et al),

I remember a study a few years back that looked at car driving skills. One of the survey questions was:
Do you think that, as a driver, you are :
1. Excellent
2. Above average
3. Average
4. Below average
5. Poor
It was not surprising that the result was 85% reporting they were above average or excellent.

This kind of result is inevitable with that kind of question. A similar result comes from asking a gun enthusiast if he/she has ever successfully used a gun to defend him/herself or some other person. Since 90% of the population are not a rational thinkers, they will use emotional logic, which goes like this.
1. I love guns
2. Therefore guns are good
3. Therefore guns are useful
4. Therefore I have used a gun in a useful way.
So when they are asked the survey question, they will find a way, through emotional thinking, to justify their possession of guns. So we have Joe Gun-lover remembering the time he heard an alarming noise (the iron on his house roof contracting at night). He grabbed his gun and ran around looking for a burglar. Finding none he went back to bed convinced he had scared off a dangerous villain.

Anyone who believes this kind of thinking does not happen is very naive. Like the example above, with self assessment of car driving skills, gun lovers self assessments of successful self defense with a gun will be totally unreal.

TLDR. Confirmation bias.

[Seth]

If they got ten years for burglarizing someone's home the first time, the community would be safe from that burglar for ten whole years.

If burglars got 10 years for a first offence there would be a more dead home owners. Burglars are stealing for drugs they are going to try and rob regardless of sentences, next heroin fix is going to trump any prison deterence regardless of length

Seth is in favor of larger prisons? Maybe he's planning on using one in the future.

No, I'm in favor of landfills.