When Carrying Goes Wrong

[calamity]

There you go, a response totally devoid of addressing the refutation of your claim. No doubt you still think your foolish claim still stands. I does not. There is only one absolutism not liked and that is the truth. Getting annoyed at those who do not buy into the lies is not the way to show how sensible and reasonable anyone is. It rather shows the fanatic, zealot, indoctrinated.... for what they are.

Did you not read the study cited in post 348?

When you people deny the obvious, and spit at facts and hard numbers, you look foolish. But, do keep it up. We need that sort of thing.

 

[Crimefree]

Did you not read the study cited in post 348?

When you people deny the obvious, and spit at facts and hard numbers, you look foolish. But, do keep it up. We need that sort of thing.

You have posted a study which has been refuted a dozen times and you know it.

WTF is obvious about guns causing anything other than the delusion of the believer.

 

[calamity]

You have posted a study which has been refuted a dozen times and you know it.

WTF is obvious about guns causing anything other than the delusion of the believer.

So, you deny that having a gun around increases chances of death by gun? :lol:

 

[Rucker61]

Your argument would be more credible if you didn't flat out deny the things which are most obvious.

Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study



But, like I said. Gun fanatics refuse to accept anything they do not want to hear.

Interesting conclusions from the authors of the study:

"A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. First, our study was based on data from death certificates and proxy interviews. The accuracy and completeness of information from these types of data sources can vary. With death certificates, for instance, there is the possibility of misclassification regarding the cause or manner of death. In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however. Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death.
Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.
Fourth, our analysis was restricted to violent deaths in the home. The dynamics of homicides or suicides occurring in other locations may be very different. However, the degree of bias with suicide is likely to be small given that over three quarters of all suicides (76.3 percent) in this nationally representative sample occurred in the home; of those that occurred outside the home, 52.7 percent were committed with a firearm. Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership."

There is also no measurement of the utility of firearms to the owner. We accept the risk of travel in automobiles because of perceived utility; likewise, the pleasure derived from the use of alcohol is not outweighed by the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to its use each year.

 

[calamity]

Interesting conclusions from the authors of the study:

"A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings from this study. First, our study was based on data from death certificates and proxy interviews. The accuracy and completeness of information from these types of data sources can vary. With death certificates, for instance, there is the possibility of misclassification regarding the cause or manner of death. In the case of proxy interviews, knowing the outcome might have introduced bias in assessing behavioral or psychological characteristics of the decedent prior to death. The nature, degree, or direction of recall bias among proxies reporting on violent deaths versus nonviolent deaths is not known, however. Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death.
Third, it is possible that the association between a gun in the home and risk of a violent death may be related to other factors that we were unable to control for in our analysis. For instance, with homicide, the association may be related to certain neighborhood characteristics or the decedent’s previous involvement in other violent or illegal behaviors. Persons living in high-crime neighborhoods or involved in illegal behaviors may acquire a gun for protection. The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.
Fourth, our analysis was restricted to violent deaths in the home. The dynamics of homicides or suicides occurring in other locations may be very different. However, the degree of bias with suicide is likely to be small given that over three quarters of all suicides (76.3 percent) in this nationally representative sample occurred in the home; of those that occurred outside the home, 52.7 percent were committed with a firearm. Finally, our study focused on fatal outcomes for a sample of decedents. We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership."

There is also no measurement of the utility of firearms to the owner. We accept the risk of travel in automobiles because of perceived utility; likewise, the pleasure derived from the use of alcohol is not outweighed by the tens of thousands of deaths attributed to its use each year.

Deny, deny, deny. Keep it up, we need to see all the foolish things the Right can muster right now. It's going to be fun.

 

[Rucker61]

So, you deny that having a gun around increases chances of death by gun? :lol:

I can accept that the very small risk is increased. I also have a car that I use daily, a kitchen full of sharp knives, ample rope and cordage not under lock and key and a liquor cabinet, the presence which of all of these can be associated with increased risk of death in the home.

 

[Rucker61]

Deny, deny, deny. Keep it up, we need to see all the foolish things the Right can muster right now. It's going to be fun.

Quoting the authors of the study you referenced is denial? It's scholarship.

 

[Crimefree]

So, you deny that having a gun around increases chances of death by gun? :lol:

You are talking about a correlation, unproven at that. Let me help you spot the deceit.

The main exposure variable was the presence of a firearm in or around the home. Proxy respondents were asked, “At any time during the last year of life, were there any firearms kept in or around the home where the decedent stayed? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, truck, or car.” Responses were coded as follows: yes—one or more firearms were kept in or around the home; no—no firearms were kept in or around the home.

 

[calamity]

You are talking about a correlation, unproven at that. Let me help you spot the deceit.

The main exposure variable was the presence of a firearm in or around the home. Proxy respondents were asked, “At any time during the last year of life, were there any firearms kept in or around the home where the decedent stayed? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, truck, or car.” Responses were coded as follows: yes—one or more firearms were kept in or around the home; no—no firearms were kept in or around the home.

Does having a gun around increase chances of dying from gunfire? Yes or no.

Anyone saying no is not thinking this through.

 

[Rucker61]

Does having a gun around increase chances of dying from gunfire? Yes or no.

Anyone saying no is not thinking this through.

So what if it does?

 

[calamity]

So what if it does?

It means I was right and you were wrong.

 

[Rucker61]

It means I was right and you were wrong.

Is that it?

 

[BretJ]

It's also been shown that having a gun around greatly increases your chance of killing a loved one or yourself.

Define "greatly" and the probability of that occuring. That stupid meme has been around a while. You need to add the qualifiers for that stupid statement to be of any value.

 

[calamity]

Is that it?

No. Merry Christmas!!

 

[BretJ]

So, you deny that having a gun around increases chances of death by gun? :lol:

Do you deny that traveling by air greatly increases your chances of death in an aircraft accident. Or that consuming alcohol greatly increases your likelihood of killing someone in a drunken rage?
Both are just as "true" as your meme and just as stupid to take at face value.

 

[Crimefree]

Deny, deny, deny. Keep it up, we need to see all the foolish things the Right can muster right now. It's going to be fun.

Another proof by unevidenced assertion. Is is actually possible for gun control advocates to debate and prove their claim addressing the data and not tossing excrement around?

 

[calamity]

Define "greatly" and the probability of that occuring. That stupid meme has been around a while. You need to add the qualifiers for that stupid statement to be of any value.

see post 348

 

[calamity]

Do you deny that traveling by air greatly increases your chances of death in an aircraft accident. Or that consuming alcohol greatly increases your likelihood of killing someone in a drunken rage?
Both are just as "true" as your meme and just as stupid to take at face value.

True, if you do not fly, you will not die in a plane crash. And, if you do not drink, you probably will live longer for many reasons. Same with not having a gun--chances are better that you or a loved one will not die by a gunshot.

 

[Crimefree]

Does having a gun around increase chances of dying from gunfire? Yes or no.

Anyone saying no is not thinking this through.

Are you going to address the claims or continue to toss excrement around?

You are talking about a correlation, unproven at that. Let me help you spot the deceit.

The main exposure variable was the presence of a firearm in or around the home. Proxy respondents were asked, “At any time during the last year of life, were there any firearms kept in or around the home where the decedent stayed? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, truck, or car.” Responses were coded as follows: yes—one or more firearms were kept in or around the home; no—no firearms were kept in or around the home.

Can you not comprehend that this research is nothing but propaganda? Any intellectual value it has left the building after the title. It is estimated that some 80% of homes in the US have at least one gun. So let me ask the same type of question of you are vehicle owners at risk of dying from a vehicle impact? Are clothe owners at risk of dying in their clothes.

Does the word asinine come to mind about your claim? That is the third time your claim has been refuted and you have yet to address that. You going to get to it soon?

 

[Crimefree]

True, if you do not fly, you will not die in a plane crash. And, if you do not drink, you probably will live longer for many reasons. Same with not having a gun--chances are better that you or a loved one will not die by a gunshot.

How is the gun in the garage going to do that? Are you actually reading these studies and the data provided to you. Please use the data you claimed as proof to prove your claims instead of these irrelevant comparisons you keep making. You have been shown they are wrong. Either prove that wrong or accept it.

 

[Rucker61]

see post 348

You mean the study where the authors stated:

Second, the gun in the home may not have been the gun used in the death.
The risk comes not necessarily from the presence of the gun in the house but from these types of environmental factors and exposures.
We were unable to ascertain the risk of a nonfatal outcome and were also unable to weigh the risk of a violent death against any protective benefits of gun ownership."

 

[BretJ]

True, if you do not fly, you will not die in a plane crash. And, if you do not drink, you probably will live longer for many reasons. Same with not having a gun--chances are better that you or a loved one will not die by a gunshot.

Yet 120,000,000 legal gun owners seem to avoid that stupid meme. As do millions of frequent flyers and alcohol consumers. So what does that tell you about taking a statistic at face value without understanding the other risk factors and true probability into account? Pretty goify isn't it?

 

[jet57]

Yet 120,000,000 legal gun owners seem to avoid that stupid meme. As do millions of frequent flyers and alcohol consumers. So what does that tell you about taking a statistic at face value without understanding the other risk factors and true probability into account? Pretty goify isn't it?

:roll:

The same old nonsense argument.

Most countries avoid war too, but we still try and stop it. Why would we do that if war isn't happening in all those other countries?

 

[Crimefree]

:roll:

The same old nonsense argument.

Most countries avoid war too, but we still try and stop it. Why would we do that if war isn't happening in all those other countries?

Another who cannot address the data.

The research is nothing but cherry picked intellectual fraud and it has been proven to be so. If you can counter that go right ahead.:roll:

 

[jet57]

Another who cannot address the data.

The research is nothing but cherry picked intellectual fraud and it has been proven to be so. If you can counter that go right ahead.:roll:

Why do we try and stop war dude. Can you answer that question?