Ohio gun violence costs lives, millions of dollars

[MyrnaLoy]

The Columbus Dispatch analyzed state records and data from 2009, which offer the most recent statewide statistics available. It found guns were present in more than 12,500 incidents investigated by authorities, an average of 34 per day.

The numbers illustrate the scope of gun violence, but it’s an incomplete picture because the crime data was submitted voluntarily by agencies that cover only about 70 percent of Ohio’s population.

"This exposure (to gun violence), whether you’re involved or not involved, it’s having a negative impact on the quality of life for the whole entire city," Wilkinson said.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/20110529ohio_gun_violence_costs_lives_millions_of_dollars/srvc=home&position=recent

[Blown330]

1. Another unrecc'd...

...post for you. Vast difference between a firearm being present and one being used in the event of a crime. Of course the OP is unable to make that distinction. Too much to think about.

[baldguy]

2. Haven't you heard? Gun violence is a myth.

If guns weren't around, all the gang-bangers would just use some other weapon in their drive-bys - knives or bats or a pointed stick. And guns really aren't designed to kill people anyway.

That's what you'd have learned by listening to the anti-gun control people in the gungeon anyway.

[gejohnston]

5. Unless you are too young to remember

Before Nixon's and Reagan's war on drugs, that is exactly what they used other than the occasional homemade zip gun. What changed? The drug business became more profitable and more competitive.

[eqfan592]

10. Actually....

...you would have learned that there is no statistical evidence that supports the claim that more guns lead to more violence. But hey, why let facts get in the way, right baldguy?

[DanTex]

12. It's just "liberal elitism" like global warming and evolution...

I understand that the pro-gun people here are well meaning, that they really believe the myth that there's "no evidence" that guns increase violence. But the denial of reality is truly staggering.

[lawodevolution]

15. first piece of evidence. Nigeria. Almost no guns and very violent. now I challenge you to find a

country with a high rate of gun ownership and a very high murder rate. Try top 20 most violent countries.

[DanTex]

19. Nigeria! Nigeria! Nigeria!

I've tried to make a point about peer reviewed research to some other pro-gun posters. But I've seen a few of your posts now, and I get the feeling that you've never seen the words "peer" and "review" in the same sentence before...

[gejohnston]

21. Been there and done that and we blew your ass out of the water

Because as soon as we shot the scribblings of your fourth rate economist out of the water, you disappeared. Let's see if you can answer a question without side stepping or insulting our intelligence with your condescending bullshit.
What makes your guy more qualified than mine on the subject?
My guy's papers were published in criminology journals. The editor most likely had a background in criminology or sociology. The referees were criminologists. Dr. Kleck even remembered to add the raw data. Dr. Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology in 1993 for this work.

Your guy is an economist and was published in a health journal. I am guessing the editor had a public health or injury prevention background. My question is what were the backgrounds of the referees? Since he did not include his raw data, was it even sent out before publication?
Show us this plenty of peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

Until then, back to the kids table with you.

[DanTex]

23. Liechtenstein! Liechtenstein! Liechtenstein!

I've missed you man, where have you been?!?!

Have you figured out what "peer review" means yet?

[gejohnston]

24. This is an adult conversation, and judging from your conduct, you know less than I do.

Otherwise you would not have ran away when confronted with your bullshit. So take your troll ass back to the kids table.

[DanTex]

27. Since I'm in a good mood, I'll toss you a little bone.

As is now evident, you are completely clueless about academic research. However, since you seem to like criminology so much, here's an article for you from the journal Criminology and Public Policy.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431220
It talks about John Lott's flawed research on "guns prevent crime", and the evidence actually suggests that right to carry laws increase violent crime. From the abstract:

Nonetheless, this now discredited thesis continues to influence public policy as John Lott continues to try to persuade state legislators that RTC (right-to-carry) laws will lower violent crime despite the great weight of the evidence to the contrary. (emphasis added)

As I've said many times, there is piles of research supporting gun control. In many different journals, by many different authors. I can see how that is a very painful fact for you to accept. But it's the truth.

I'm not sure how you pro-gun people managed to live in some cave where there's no research supporting gun control. And I'm not just saying that. It's really hard for me to believe. Particularly since you really care about the guns issue. It's almost like saying you're a basketball fan but never having heard of Lebron James.

[gejohnston]

30. Who said anything about John Lott?

The only thing I said about John Lott was that he is just another shill economist like your boy Hemenway. He just happens to have a different paymaster. The award winning criminologist I mentioned, basically said they are both full of shit. Still at the kids table.

[DanTex]

33. Yeah I didn't figure that evidence would change your mind about anything.

You've got your story and you're sticking to it! And for every piece of research you disagree with, you find some BS reason to discount it.

Good night for now, always a good time!

Never let a little research get in the way of your truthiness!

[eqfan592]

35. What evidence???

A discredited study that used a limited data set to ensure a specific result?? THAT is your slam dunk evidence?? HA

[gejohnston]

37. Project much? The pleasure was all yours I'm sure. I prefer adult conversations

[eqfan592]

32. It took me two seconds..

....to find rebuttals to that article that dismantled the methodology used so thoroughly as to render the findings laughable. It used a very narrow data set in order to produce specific findings. Other studies that have used a more broad data set have shown their findings are not supported by the data.

But hey, nice try though.

[eqfan592]

17. It is staggerting...

..and you personify it. You have yet to present any evidence at all of a causal link between guns and violence, yet you persist to insist that such a link exists. You ignore the various socio-economic factors that are the root causes of crime in favor of legislation that will literally do NOTHING to prevent crime.

Oh yes, there are some folks around here that are the equivalent of global warming deniers, but the are NOT on the pro-2a side of the argument.

[DanTex]

18. LOL. Never mind those darn "Ivy League elites" and their "peer reviewed research"...

Y'all crack me up, you really do. I see your buddy's on about Nigeria again.

The global warming deniers will always have a special place in my heart, but as I've found on this board in the last week, pro-gun denialists can hold their own with any group of uneducated loons. That I can definitely testify to.

[eqfan592]

20. Lol, what peer reviewed research...

..that has actually SURVIVED the peer review process without challenge (and no, simply being published in a journal does not make a study above reproach) proves a causal link between firearms and violent crime?

I know studies have been done that have tried to establish such a link, however they have also been completely blown full of holes because of the shoddy logic and methodology used.

If this were like climate change, you should have bucket loads of hard evidence, statistical data and peer reviewed research to back up your claim. You have none of these things. A few discredited studies that managed to work there way into the peer review process don't add up to a heck of a lot.

But hey, I'm used to people like yourself wanting to live in a fantasy land where crime can be waved away with the magic wand of gun control. You've been standing in the path of real solutions to the problem for years now.

EDIT: BTW, breaking down a paper and describing why it is full of crap is not the same as "ignoring" it. In fact, it is the exact opposite. It is acknowledging it and then taking it a step further and explaining not only that it IS wrong, but WHY it is wrong. This has been done many times by various members of the forum in regards to some of the studies you likely speak of.

[DanTex]

22. You know, the kind that was peer reviewed!

Clearly you have no idea how the peer review process actually works, or what peer review means. If a paper is published in a peer reviewed journal, then it has "SURVIVED" the peer review process, by definition. I know you don't believe me on this, but it's true! But don't take my word, ask one of the better educated pro-gun people, they'll tell you the same thing. Although I am starting to wonder whether there is even one pro-gun person on this board who knows the first thing about how research works. Actually I think I remember there was one...

Anyway, if it makes you feel better to think that the pages and pages of research linking guns and violent crime has all been blown full of holes by the right-wing pro-gun internet sites you get your information from, well then you just keep right on denying, my brother!

But here's a clue. Those same teabaggers that claim that the gun research uses "shoddy logic and methodology", they say the exact same thing about global warming research. And with the same amount of credibility.

Trust me on this. Global warming, guns, evolution. Everyone who has ever wanted to believe something that goes against the mainstream peer reviewed research says the same thing.

At least you've got a lot of company...

[gejohnston]

25. one last chance.

What makes your guy more qualified than mine on the subject?
My guy's papers were published in criminology journals. The editor most likely had a background in criminology or sociology. The referees were criminologists. Dr. Kleck even remembered to add the raw data. Dr. Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology in 1993 for this work.

Your guy is an economist and was published in a health journal. I am guessing the editor had a public health or injury prevention background. My question is what were the backgrounds of the referees? Since he did not include his raw data, was it even sent out before publication?
Show us this plenty of peer-reviewed empirical evidence.

[eqfan592]

28. He can't, because it doesn't exist.

He has a small handful of long discredited studies that managed to get published (which is apparently the pinnacle of the peer review process in his mind). He considers this to be on equal footing with the massive quantities of data that support climate change and evolution (EVOLUTION!! A DAMNED SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND HE THINK'S IT'S ON EQUAL FOOTING!!!).

Also, anybody that has any opinions that he deems "conservative" is not to be listened too on any topic, ever, and has NOTHING of value to ever bring to a debate.

[eqfan592]

26. Wow, full of shit much?

I know what the peer review process is. That you think it stops when something by being published in a journal only underscores how little YOU know of it.

Exactly what right wing websites did I get my information from? Oh, wait, you have no idea, because I never sourced any right wing websites when discussing this subject with you? Yeah, that's what I thought. You're just making shit up again.

Honestly, I don't know what to tell you man. You're zealotry is clearly so ingrained the idea of critical self examination seems to be a completely foreign concept. That you think somehow a link between guns and violence has actually been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt just goes to underscore how far gone you truly are.

Good company indeed. I take company with rational thinkers, not blind zealotry, and you clearly fall into the latter category.

I would suggest you take a look at what the National Academy of Science has to say about the effectiveness of gun control, but I suspect that will only lead you to believing THEM to be a right wing think tank of some sort, thus it is likely a pointless exercise.

[DanTex]

29. Good times. You're a real expert on peer review. Right on.

Getting late over here, but always a pleasure.

Like I said, the global warming deniers have nothing on the pro-gun denialists. I learned something this week.

[gejohnston]

31. Most likely more than you. Next time show some respect for your elders.

[eqfan592]

34. lol

And while I'm no expert at peer review, I clearly have a better understanding of it than you do, since you seem to think it stops at the publishing stage of a paper in a journal. I also learned something this week; some folks are so beyond delusional they don't realize what side of the crazy fence they are on.

You don't like guns? Fine. But don't sit here and act like you have piles of empirical evidence that don't actually exist. It just makes you out to look like a fraud when you are constantly shown how wrong you are.

[X_Digger]

38. One great big appeal to authority.

I'm surprised nobody's busted your chops on it yet, frankly.

[Common Sense Party]

39. With healthy doses of poisoning the well and ad hominem attacks

thrown in for good measure.

The logic fail is strong in this one.

[X_Digger]

43. Oh, I forgot 'appeal to popularity' (started a while thread with that one..)

[jpak]

40. Wecome to DU!

:hi:

[onehandle]

3. 'This gun has made me lose everything... my family, my friends...'

'...everything but my precious, precious gun.'

[baldguy]

7. +1

How does the NRA and it's RW fellow travelers defend against the armed Homers in the world?

That's right! Shoot 'em!

[lawodevolution]

16. yall use powerful arguments. Homer? lol.

[gejohnston]

36. I don't know about RW or the NRA

But if Homer were doing a home invasion or tried attack my family, this left winger would greet Homer with a phone in one hand and a pistol in the other. The choice would be his. Judging from the episodes of the Simpsons I've seen, he would wisely decide to sit down while waiting for the cops to show up.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Unrec Patrol, reporting for duty, as instructed.

They'll show ya...............:rofl:

[rrneck]

6. How many of the incidents mentioned

if any, were self defense? If none how many incidents of self defense with a firearm were there? Also, how many incidents did not occur because the assailant thought the victim might be armed?

[spin]

8. [i]"If the citizens knew what we know, they’d never leave their house,"

a Columbus officer recently told the newspaper at the scene of a gun crime.
from the link in the OP http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/midwest/view/20110529ohio_gun_violence_costs_lives_millions_of_dollars/srvc=home&position=recent

Perhaps that's why many people obtain concealed carry permits and carry. That decision may be far more reasonable and rational than some posters here in the Gungeon want us to believe.

[PavePusher]

9. "exposure...it’s having a negative impact..."

Is like "expose" to teh gays, or minorities?

This is like reading conservative protect-the-nuclear-family screeds.

[ileus]

11. much of it happens in the largest cities...why do cities have a hard time controlling their guns?

[virginia mountainman]

13. Another thread from you...

Almost like today's Virginia "Sheriff's deputy rampage" was somehow caused by a LEGAL gun owner, and that is why we should enact more gun control on CIVILIAN gun owners??

[RSillsbee]

14. The one and only comment on the article seems to disagree w/ it and you

Propaganda. Not once does this article mention the illegal ownership of the firearms in question or how they were obtained. Nor does it mention how many crimes were deterred by the legal ownership of firearms. Kudos for identifying the major problem of big city crime and not condemning the whole state. A gun is an inanimate object that can't actuated on its own. It must have a human condition to function. That is the problem.
Thanks from Columbus,Ohio

So what do I have to do w/ some criminal's misuse of a firearm? What effect will going after my gun safe have on crime in Ohio?

[jpak]

41. So why does the GOP/NRA want guns everywhere all the time?

for more misery

and more death

that's why

yup

[eqfan592]

42. lol, yes, that is exactly why.

Glad to see you are your rational thinking self as always, jpak.