Another US Shooting-this time a church

[mnealtx 0]

You've not shown WHERE you get the ownership data from - it certainly wasn't available on the CDC website.

All of your other "points" are supposition - you cannot prove that increased availability is the sole reason for increased deaths OR home invasion, just as I can't definitively prove that the availability of concealed carry is responsible for less crime.

I *can* (and did) provide information leading back to a study that shows that criminals TEND to avoid places where they know armed citizens might be, but that isn't conclusive proof, either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

I went to the CDC's BRFSS page but there's no information listed for firearms, other than a reference to 2% of the deaths (NOT homicides as you assert) were due to firearms....in 1990.

Having problems with the old reading comprehension today, Mike? The information from the BRFSS was for % of households owning guns, AS I CLEARLY WROTE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Quote

What was the little town in Georgia, years ago, that passed a law saying that every home owner must own a gun...or something of that nature. It wasn't enforced, but gun ownership did increase dramatically. People's homes virtually ceased to be broken into. Maybe somebody remembers this better than I do. I'll try to find out the details better.

linz

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Data

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[warpedskydiver 0]

That data will be brushed aside as "rubbish"


Not that it is not correct.

[pop 0]

Quote

You've not shown WHERE you get the ownership data from - it certainly wasn't available on the CDC website.

All of your other "points" are supposition - you cannot prove that increased availability is the sole reason for increased deaths OR home invasion, just as I can't definitively prove that the availability of concealed carry is responsible for less crime.

I *can* (and did) provide information leading back to a study that shows that criminals TEND to avoid places where they know armed citizens might be, but that isn't conclusive proof, either.

The argument is about homicides, not home invasions.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The grand champion of the crime rate lottery is "Disarmed DC", with a rate of 1508.4/100k. "

DC is NOT a state. Compare apples with apples, not prunes.

"If you call a tail a "leg", how many legs does a dog have?" Abraham Lincoln.

Now you're REALLY stretching, Professor. Better let the FBI know that they need to update their UCR stats, since DC's crimes don't count.

If it's not a state, then why does it have a representative in Congress? Why are the various Federal laws applicable to the states valid there?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pop 0]

Quote

If it's not a state, then why does it have a representative in Congress?

I guess US is now made up of 51 states. I thought it was only 50.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I went to the CDC's BRFSS page but there's no information listed for firearms, other than a reference to 2% of the deaths (NOT homicides as you assert) were due to firearms....in 1990.

Having problems with the old reading comprehension today, Mike? The information from the BRFSS was for % of households owning guns, AS I CLEARLY WROTE.

Actually, no problems with reading comprehension at all... just with data that doesn't seem to exist where you say it does.

Why don't you provide the link to the actual data or page so it can be verified, since it's not something that is searchable on the CDC BRFSS pages? (comes back with 'no data available')

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was the little town in Georgia, years ago, that passed a law saying that every home owner must own a gun...or something of that nature. It wasn't enforced, but gun ownership did increase dramatically. People's homes virtually ceased to be broken into. Maybe somebody remembers this better than I do. I'll try to find out the details better.

linz

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Data

And the change in the national crime rate over the same period was what? If you want to see the effect of the Kennesaw law you have to comapare it with something.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

That data will be brushed aside as "rubbish"


Not that it is not correct.

Wow, you called it.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The grand champion of the crime rate lottery is "Disarmed DC", with a rate of 1508.4/100k. "

DC is NOT a state. Compare apples with apples, not prunes.

"If you call a tail a "leg", how many legs does a dog have?" Abraham Lincoln.

Now you're REALLY stretching, Professor. Better let the FBI know that they need to update their UCR stats, since DC's crimes don't count.

If it's not a state, then why does it have a representative in Congress? Why are the various Federal laws applicable to the states valid there?

FOUR. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. Abraham Lincoln.

And calling DC a state does not make it one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What was the little town in Georgia, years ago, that passed a law saying that every home owner must own a gun...or something of that nature. It wasn't enforced, but gun ownership did increase dramatically. People's homes virtually ceased to be broken into. Maybe somebody remembers this better than I do. I'll try to find out the details better.

linz

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Data

To be fair, if gun ownership is required, then convicted felons are not allowed to live there. A reduction in crimes could just as easily be attributable to the banishment of felons as to an increasingly armed populace.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Unless it is convenient for you.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

That data will be brushed aside as "rubbish"


Not that it is not correct.

Wow, you called it.

Did you make a comparison yet of the Kennesaw data with the national data over the same period (1981 - 2005)? Without such a comparison, your data are not meaningful.

Waiting.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why don't you provide the link to the actual data or page so it can be verified, since it's not something that is searchable on the CDC BRFSS pages? (comes back with 'no data available')

It is interesting that he has continued to give us 'data' in the form of summaries and scatterplots without giving the info for each data point. It again reinforces the impression that the intent is to manipulate. It certainly isn't science.

DC is not a state. There's no doubt of this. It is however, entirely relevant to the conversation - it is a geographic region that has its own set of misguided rules and the results certainly can be examined. (unless it hurts your argument).

As I suggested earlier, measuring ownership and crime by state has potential for misleading results where the population density (cities versus rural) varies. DC is a single city and a 'state' so it gets the extreme result. If Kallend would actually produce the data points (state, ownership%, crime rate) we could look for the same there.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Unless it is convenient for you.

Comments on these data?
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=93666;

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

You've not shown WHERE you get the ownership data from - it certainly wasn't available on the CDC website.

All of your other "points" are supposition - you cannot prove that increased availability is the sole reason for increased deaths OR home invasion, just as I can't definitively prove that the availability of concealed carry is responsible for less crime.

I *can* (and did) provide information leading back to a study that shows that criminals TEND to avoid places where they know armed citizens might be, but that isn't conclusive proof, either.

The argument is about homicides, not home invasions.

Defense of the home is one of the principle reasons given in surveys of why people own handguns. (Sport is the principle reason given by owners of long guns). Hence it's legitimate to ask if the strategy actually works.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Why don't you provide the link to the actual data or page so it can be verified, since it's not something that is searchable on the CDC BRFSS pages? (comes back with 'no data available')

It is interesting that he has continued to give us 'data' in the form of summaries and scatterplots without giving the info for each data point. It again reinforces the impression that the intent is to manipulate. It certainly isn't science.

DC is not a state. There's no doubt of this. It is however, entirely relevant to the conversation - it is a geographic region that has its own set of misguided rules and the results certainly can be examined. (unless it hurts your argument).

As I suggested earlier, measuring ownership and crime by state has potential for misleading results where the population density (cities versus rural) varies. DC is a single city and a 'state' so it gets the extreme result. If Kallend would actually produce the data points (state, ownership%, crime rate) we could look for the same there.

Don't like my analysis - try this one:

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978, Copyright © 1997 by American Public Health Association

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

P Cummings, T D Koepsell, D C Grossman, J Savarino and R S Thompson

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.


OBJECTIVES: 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.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Unless it is convenient for you.

Comments on these data?
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=93666;

Can you point out the data? I don't see any. I just see a scatterplot with no supporting data. I could just as easily create my own reality.

I spelled it out for you already - data would be a listing of states and their gun ownership and crime values. (along with sources for that as well).

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Don't like my analysis - try this one:

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978, Copyright © 1997 by American Public Health Association

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

You're trying to change the subject again. There is an obvious correlation/causation issue with the above.

I don't concern myself with suicides, because I believe they will happen regardless. People here want to turn the Golden Gate Bridge into an ugly mess of fences to keep people from jumping. You seem to think that removing guns will keep people from shooting themselves. But if they kill themselves some other way, what have you gained? And more importantly, what have you hurt? IMO, the health benefits of being able to have a nice unobstructed view of the city and the bay is more important.

I'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.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data".

Unless it is convenient for you.

Comments on these data?
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=93666;

Can you point out the data? I don't see any. I just see a scatterplot with no supporting data. I could just as easily create my own reality.

I spelled it out for you already - data would be a listing of states and their gun ownership and crime values. (along with sources for that as well).

I posted the link in the other "shooting" thread.

The data came from

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003

Matthew Miller, a, , David Hemenwaya, and Deborah Azraela,
aHarvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Social Science & Medicine
Volume 64, Issue 3, February 2007, Pages 656-664

Care to dispute them?


The data on firearms in homes are here.

Care to dispute them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Don't like my analysis - try this one:

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978, Copyright © 1997 by American Public Health Association

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

You're trying to change the subject again. There is an obvious correlation/causation issue with the above.

.

How is an article about gun ownership and its relation to gun fatalites "changing the subject"?

I have now posted a bunch of independent studies, ALL of which show a clear link between gun ownership and risk of death by shooting.

So far there's been a lot of nitpicking but no-one has been able to provide a fact-based rebuttal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So far there's been a lot of nitpicking but no-one has been able to provide a fact-based rebuttal.

Until you actually provide available data, and you have intentionally not, it's not possible to give such a rebuttal.

If you have the actual PDF, you could provide that. Or perhaps the source of those graphs - it's not available in the summary urls.

You've acted in very bad faith this week - posting summaries to the same studies multiple times to give undue credence to your argument.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

OBJECTIVES: 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.)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Elisha 1]

Correlation does not imply causation. kallend may be a professor, but most likely not one of statistics...or a very dishonest one.