kallend 2,027 #176 December 12, 2007 Quote Correlation does not imply causation. kallend may be a professor, but most likely not one of statistics...or a very dishonest one. I guess you didn't bother to read all the citations I gave. And one thing is for sure, any faith you may have that guns make you safer is certainly not backed by any of the evidence. "Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds," Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 52(2):267-275, February 2002. VPC Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "This illustrates the pivotal role played by firearms and disproves the false claim that if guns were not available, shooters would simply employ other means. Most importantly, this study proves what common sense would dictate, a greater availability of guns has dangerous and deadly consequences. Firearms in the home pose an enormous threat to the well-being of our nation's children." According to the study's authors, there are large differences in states' violent death rates among children, and these rates are closely tied to levels of gun ownership. The elevated rate of violent death among children in high gun ownership states cannot be explained by differences in state levels of poverty, education, or urbanization. The five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were: Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia. The five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership were: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Delaware. Matthew Miller, MD, MPH, ScD, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at HSPH and lead author of the study, states, "In states with more guns, more children are dying. They are dying in suicides, in homicides, and in unintentional shootings. This finding is completely contrary to the notion that guns are protecting our children." ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #177 December 12, 2007 QuoteQuoteOBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase. METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death. This is another Chicken-Egg thing. The results of the study could actually indicate that people who are more prone to suicide or murder, are also more likely to buy a handgun. It does not necessarily follow that the action of buying or owning a handgun makes an individual more likely to kill or be killed. (as explained in the Methods, they began the study by looking at 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims.) Grasp at straws if it makes you feel better about your faith in guns.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #178 December 12, 2007 Quote You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. I've told you EXACTLY where to find the data. You just don't want to believe it so you're throwing dust in the air.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #179 December 13, 2007 This is only my second post in this thread (first is what you just replied to). Where do I even state owning a gun or my support? My first post stands. Your ANECDOTE below ("studies have shown" doesn't mean squat w/o stating the actual study and data source behind the study). You're not convincing anyone here and it is not because people here are refusing to consider your argument. (Hint: improve your argument) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #180 December 13, 2007 QuoteThis is only my second post in this thread (first is what you just replied to). Where do I even state owning a gun or my support? My first post stands. Your ANECDOTE below ("studies have shown" doesn't mean squat w/o stating the actual study and data source behind the study). You're not convincing anyone here and it is not because people here are refusing to consider your argument. (Hint: improve your argument) If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I gave citations for the various studies quoted. Some were in another thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #181 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuote You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. I've told you EXACTLY where to find the data. It's not my job to ferret out information you won't provide. Nor pay to see it. But keep telling the lies, Goebbel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #182 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteOBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase. METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death. This is another Chicken-Egg thing. The results of the study could actually indicate that people who are more prone to suicide or murder, are also more likely to buy a handgun. It does not necessarily follow that the action of buying or owning a handgun makes an individual more likely to kill or be killed. (as explained in the Methods, they began the study by looking at 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims.) Grasp at straws if it makes you feel better about your faith in guns. I've never even owned a gun. I thought I brought up a valid point. I totally believe that a person who is contemplating suicide or murder, is more likely than the average person to go out and buy a gun. This could lead to the figures you mention. However the reverse isn't necessarily true. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #183 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. I've told you EXACTLY where to find the data. It's not my job to ferret out information you won't provide. Nor pay to see it. But keep telling the lies, Goebbel. It's not my job to copy stuff just for your benefit because you're too lazy to do it yourself. I gave an EXACT citation for the original journal article. I gave a link to the gun ownership data. The homicide rates are available from the FBI or DoJ web sites (and many other places besides). I gave links to media articles providing synopses of the journal articles. Calling me a liar and "Goebbels" IS a PA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #184 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuote You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. I've told you EXACTLY where to find the data. You just don't want to believe it so you're throwing dust in the air. And just what would you call disregarding DC's crime data FROM THE UCR when it's inconvenient to the point you're trying to make?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #185 December 13, 2007 QuoteAnd just what would you call disregarding DC's crime data FROM THE UCR when it's inconvenient to the point you're trying to make? It isn't a state, so it can't be included in a discussion comparing states. (and I think if people are being completely honest with themselves they can clearly see that DC is completely different from any state in the US. Having some representation in congressmight be the only thing it has in common with any of the states) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #186 December 13, 2007 OK then, let's compare DC to other cities then. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteAnd just what would you call disregarding DC's crime data FROM THE UCR when it's inconvenient to the point you're trying to make? It isn't a state, so it can't be included in a discussion comparing states. (and I think if people are being completely honest with themselves they can clearly see that DC is completely different from any state in the US. Having some representation in congressmight be the only thing it has in common with any of the states) Tell it to the FBI - they're the ones including DC in with the rest of the states in the UCR...why, I do not know.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #188 December 13, 2007 Quote Here are the top states for home invasions. Notice anything - like they are states where gun ownership is prevalent? Seems that having a firearm in the home DOESN'T deter burglars at all. I suspect it just makes it more likely that the burglar will be armed. Those poor disarmed people in IL and Wl come in at #32 and #45 respectively. "disarmed people in IL and WI"? What does that mean? I have lived most of my life in these two states and can confirm that there is a large gun culture in these states. Gun ownership is very, very prevalent where I live. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #189 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuote Here are the top states for home invasions. Notice anything - like they are states where gun ownership is prevalent? Seems that having a firearm in the home DOESN'T deter burglars at all. I suspect it just makes it more likely that the burglar will be armed. Those poor disarmed people in IL and Wl come in at #32 and #45 respectively. "disarmed people in IL and WI"? What does that mean? I have lived most of my life in these two states and can confirm that there is a large gun culture in these states. Gun ownership is very, very prevalent where I live. Oh. To read the posts of warpedskydiver one might think guns were totally banned. Could he be wrong?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #190 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. I've told you EXACTLY where to find the data. You just don't want to believe it so you're throwing dust in the air. And just what would you call disregarding DC's crime data FROM THE UCR when it's inconvenient to the point you're trying to make? If you will provide the % of households in DC with firearms (legal and illegal), I will be happy to add DC to the chart, even though DC is a city and not a state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #191 December 13, 2007 RIF Proposed gun bans and restrictions on types of firearms legal to own, but not in the state of Illinoistan does not equate to disarmed. Only the idiots in Chicago and Crook county seem to think that banning any firearm is going to stop crime. You post things I never said, accuse me of plagarism when I post something verbatim of a newsletter I received, and in fact do not tell teh truth. You pick apart a headline, twisting the meaning of said headline, only in oder to imply I am wrong. Grow up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #192 December 13, 2007 QuoteRIF Proposed gun bans and restrictions on types of firearms legal to own, but not in the state of Illinoistan does not equate to disarmed. Only the idiots in Chicago and Crook county seem to think that banning any firearm is going to stop crime. You post things I never said, accuse me of plagarism when I post something verbatim of a newsletter I received, and in fact do not tell teh truth. You pick apart a headline, twisting the meaning of said headline, only in oder to imply I am wrong. Grow up. Would you like to re-write that in English?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #193 December 13, 2007 Quote If you will provide the % of households in DC with firearms (legal and illegal), I will be happy to add DC to the chart, even though DC is a city and not a state. Let me play devils advocate: - DC is not part of any state, therefore its stats don't exist in the stats of any other state. - It has a congressional representative (non-voting) which no city has. - It's residents have no other representation in the Senate or the House. - The familiar expression "Washington, D.C." originated because "Washington" was a city within the "District of Columbia", (as was Georgetown), prior to the city of Washington eventually annexing all of the property in DC. Therefore I will argue that politically, DC is more a state than a city."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #194 December 13, 2007 QuoteTherefore I will argue that politically, DC is more a state than a city. You are absolutely right, politically it is more a state than a city. But, that is exactly where the comparison ends.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #195 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuote If you will provide the % of households in DC with firearms (legal and illegal), I will be happy to add DC to the chart, even though DC is a city and not a state. Let me play devils advocate: - DC is not part of any state, therefore its stats don't exist in the stats of any other state. - It has a congressional representative (non-voting) which no city has. - It's residents have no other representation in the Senate or the House. - The familiar expression "Washington, D.C." originated because "Washington" was a city within the "District of Columbia", (as was Georgetown), prior to the city of Washington eventually annexing all of the property in DC. Therefore I will argue that politically, DC is more a state than a city. The ONLY reason DC is excluded from the analysis is that the survey of % households owning guns was a survey of STATES. If you want to provide the missing data it will be possible to include DC in the plot.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #196 December 13, 2007 QuoteI've had guns for 8 years now. No homicides, no suicides. Of course, I didn't buy them because I was depressed or afraid of my loan shark. I was only afraid of state legislators. You were afraid that a state legislator was going to come kicking down your door, mouth foaming in homicidal rage? Seems unlikely. That, ultimately is why I don't own a gun. I am not afraid. To paraphrase a great movie: "Quite a thing to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be slave."Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #197 December 13, 2007 QuoteYou've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument. The scientific studies he points to employ the most robust method for getting to the truth known to humankind: the scientific method with peer review. Does the fact that he posted them twice somehow diminish their value? It seems like you have no rebuttal to evidence, and so are nit picking.Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #198 December 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteI've had guns for 8 years now. No homicides, no suicides. Of course, I didn't buy them because I was depressed or afraid of my loan shark. I was only afraid of state legislators. You were afraid that a state legislator was going to come kicking down your door, mouth foaming in homicidal rage? Seems unlikely. That, ultimately is why I don't own a gun. I am not afraid. To paraphrase a great movie: "Quite a thing to live in fear isn't it? That's what it is to be slave." Oh, Lord...THAT old canard again? Do you wear a seatbelt because you're afraid? Do you have a reserve because you're afraid? Do you carry homeowner's/renter's insurance because you're afraid? Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house because you're afraid? No, most likely not - you have them to be prepared for a situation in which you need them. Owning a gun is no different.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #199 December 13, 2007 >But keep telling the lies, Goebbel. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #200 December 13, 2007 I have a question Bill, is it a lie to keep repeating the words of a study that has been shown to not be true? I would like to know your take on that. A PM is fine as to not take away from the important debate in this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
