More on the Roller World Shooting

[mikeb302000]

Although http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-are-all-of-us-horrified-at-number-of.html">Dog Gone posted this story when it first broke, I found it to be http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/07/why.html">like Joan Peterson said, practically obscured by the news from Norway.

Reuters reports on the horrible multiple-murder and suicide which, had it not been for the tremendous coverage of the story from Norway, probably would have been the at the top.

A man who opened fire on his estranged wife and her relatives at a family birthday party, killing five people and himself and wounding four others, had been having ongoing marital problems, police said on Sunday.

I suppose for a bit of comic relief, the reporter closed the story like this:

The couple's two children were unharmed.

What do you think? Was that 11-year-old boy whose birthday party ended this way really unharmed?

This is a good example of how the pro-gun voices downplay the damage caused by gun misuse. Often they talk only of deaths, and when they do speak of the wounded they'll give you the impression that they're mainly flesh wounds that heal. The reality is many people are left with brain or spinal cord damage. And what's always left out are the relatives, friends and loved ones who are left emotionally and psychologically damaged.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000) If it bothers you that I put that link there, please don't click on it but spare us the whining. If you want to keep up with all the latest in gun related news, click away.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[Starboard Tack]

1. Not to mention the damage to the national psyche by the glorification of guns

[mikeb302000]

10. absolutely right

that's what we can gradually change, but I'm afraid it's an uphill grind.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

16. If there were no guns

would we simply glorify violence? How many violent sports get glorified every day?
How many martial arts films?

A gun is just a simulacrum for human desire.

How'd the trip go?

[Starboard Tack]

77. Unfortunately some would still glorify violence in any form

though I many of us have somehow managed to evolve beyond that, some to the point of finding it abhorrent under all but the most extreme circumstances. Hopefully, contact sports, movie and video game violence, serve as harmless relief valves for more primal urges, rather than contributing to real world violence. Much like pornography, in spite of Ted Bundy's claims to the contrary.
"A gun is just a simulacrum for human desire." Interesting. Glad you said that and not me.
The trip was great. 8500 miles of backroads, 26 states, lots of wonderful friends, both new and old, down home food, one MLB game and one Broadway show.
Now we'll save up for a couple of years before taking the next one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. What damage?

[Starboard Tack]

57. What damage? You must be kidding.

Do you think 30,000 gun deaths a year in a country where a vociferous minority extols the virtues of gun toting and using guns as problem solving tools has no deleterious effect on the national psyche?
What do you teach, professor? Don't leave home without it?
We wouldn't be having these conversations if everything was hunky-dory. Gun lovers are buying guns and ammo like crazy. Others are arming themselves for the first time, while the rest of us shake our heads in bewilderment and you ask "What damage?"

[beevul]

82. Lumping suicides in there are we?

Can we assume that your position is that those 15000+ people who committed suicide - made a choice that wasn't really theirs to make?


Who owns YOUR life?

[Starboard Tack]

87. Yes, I am lumping suicides in there

I think suicide by gun has been glamorized in our society and definitely contributes to the damage to our national psyche.
"Eating" one's gun has become almost standard practice for depressed cops. Much more manly than seeing a shrink. Then, of course, there's suicide by cop for the villains who want to go out in a blaze of glory.
Sticking one's head in the oven or slitting wrists is the sissy way.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. That begs the question of whether suicide by gun is more damaging than suicide by other means.

Japan has more suicides than we have murders. Their suicide rate is higher than the US murder and suicide rates combined.

There are very few suicides via gun in Japan. So tell me:

Which nation is more 'damaged' by suicide?

[Starboard Tack]

122. Interesting point and something I have pondered from time to time

Suicide in Japan seems to be more of an honor thing, deeply embedded in their culture and usually involves ritualistic seppuku, an old samurai tradition, similar to falling on one's sword in western culture.
Suicide in America tends to be motivated by depression, helplessness, lack of self esteem, guilt etc. More of an easy way out. We could probably benefit from more honorable suicides. Previous administration comes to mind.
So, to answer your question, I don't think either country is damaged by suicide, just the individuals who commit it.

[X_Digger]

125. Seppuku?!? You really need to put down the VHS copy of Shogun..

Most Japanese suicides today involve combinations of jumping in front of trains, jumping from a great height, hanging, overdosing on medication, or the admixture of household chemicals.

That latest one is pretty damned nasty, and has led to more than one unintentional death of apartment neighbors or first responders.

Additionally, many 'suicide' events in Japan would be listed as murder-suicides here.

http://www.japanpsychiatrist.com/Abstracts/Shinju.html

The Japanese language has diverse words for shinju. Shinju has been classified into two major categories, johshi (mutually consented lovers' suicide) and oyako-shinju (parent-child suicide), the latter of which is subclassified further such as boshi-shinju (mother-child suicide), fushi-shinju (father-child suicide), and ikka-shinju (family suicide). The number of johshi have been declining in the past three decades. Although the number of oyako-shinju has been declining since the 1950s as well, it is still a serious problem.

Most cases of shinju are boshi-shinju in which the children, who are too young to decide on suicide themselves, are killed by their mothers. Ohara and Inamura have both pointed out that boshi-shinju and fushi-shinju have important differences (Ohara, 1963, 1965; Inamura, 1977, 1993). In boshi-shinju mothers in their 20s and 30s kill their children and then commit suicide. The children most often victimized in boshi-shinju are of preschool age. In fushi-shinju the fathers (who are usually older than the boshi-shinju mothers) kill their children (who are older than the victims of boshi-shinju), and then commit suicide. The most common reasons for boshi-shinju are psychiatric disorders and family conflicts, while those of fushi-shinju are financial problems and physical illness. Japanese often show considerable sympathy toward parents who are not able to find any other recourse but to commit suicide with her/his children.

[Starboard Tack]

150. Interesting stuff. Very diffferent culture.

[petronius]

146. Damn, this is one of the most fucked-up yet fascinating posts I've read all week

:toast:

It's like one of those screwy essay topics from philosophy class: 'More honorable suicides would be good for the nation - discuss.' You've made my brain hurt with this one (but not in the bad way)...

[Starboard Tack]

147. Cheers. Anything to shake it up a little

Maybe we'll get back to this topic later. Have to do a little more research so I won't come across as being too fucked up. But it is a fascinating subject. Maybe those who are more familiar with Japanese culture will join the discussion.

[petronius]

149. Just to clarify - I didn't intend 'effed up' in any negative sense

Morbid, bizarre, surprising: those are very often good things in my book... :)

[beevul]

113. Such a demonstration.

A demonstration showing that not all responses are replies, that is.


Who owns YOUR life?

[bellcrank]

20. I keep forgetting, which of the Bill of Rights covers protection to the psyche?

My copy is pretty old...

[Starboard Tack]

59. What the heck does the Bill of Rights have to do with my comment

but I do remember something about "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence and I don't think Mr. Jefferson was equating "happiness" with a warm gun.

[SteveM]

51. "...national psyche?" What is that? Can you define "glorification?" thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

61. You want me to look words up for you? It's not that hard, really!

But as I'm in a good mood
"Reference is sometimes made to the "national psyche" or the "soul" of a nation, to explain why some public events can trigger a commotion or uproar in a country, or why a particular nation gets particularly enthusiastic or obsessed with a sport or cultural practice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_psychology

Now you're going to have to look up "glorification" yourself, because if you don't know what it means then you need to practice using a dictionary.

[SteveM]

73. No, actually I wanted you to define your terms...

and leave the snarkiness aside. Stuff like "national psyche" "the soul" of a nation (as in the soul of the American is "isolate, a killer") can be of use when discussing, say, the superiority of SEC college football, or the lusting for Philly cheese steak sandwiches, but only if there is some kind of attempt to define terms instead of letting some cheesy mysticism float about in place of critical thought. And "glorification" is in that category, only more so.

You haven't defined your own terms.

[aquart]

2. Think he got the gun at a gun show?

Maybe he was one of those pure and good licensed users.

Sure did defend his family.

[gejohnston]

5. statistically speaking, not likely and most likely prohibited possession by

Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Of course, there is a slim chance you may be correct.

[mikeb302000]

11. Guns and women

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/07/guns-and-women.html">Guns are bad news for women.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. More blog flogging...not to mention wrong

[SteveM]

52. Women are grown-up people. They can decide what's "bad" for themselves.

[DanTex]

58. Unfortunately, many women (and men also) live in volatile households

and despite claims (usually by right-wing men) that guns help women defend themselves, studies clearly show that a gun in a household is far more likely to be used by an abusive domestic partner against a woman than by a woman defending herself against domestic abuse.

And I can assure you that domestic abuse is not something easy to get away from. Unfortunately some people do choose to blame women for entering into an abusive relationship, saying it's their "choice". But it's important to realize that for women in this situation, there isn't much choice about whether a gun is kept in the home or whether it will be used as part of domestic violence and intimidation against them.

Now, I understand that you didn't have this particular scenario in mind with that last comment. But it remains a fact that one unfortunate consequence of the excessively lax gun laws in the US is that it amplifies domestic abuse.

Also, polls show that women are more likely than men to support stricter gun control laws. Perhaps it is because they are more aware of the domestic violence aspect of the issue.

[SteveM]

72. Are most domestic relationships filled with violence?

What data do you have which estimates the percentage of household characterized by domestic violence? It may indeed by wise for a household experiencing such to not have guns available. But do these "studies" recommend that all the "peaceful" households surrender or never acquire guns? As to "choices," there are some studies (both surveys and examination of actual police reports) which show that the violence is more often initiated by women than men.

The only scenario I had in mind was the average household wherein violence is rare or non-existent; scenarios where women may be faced with life-threatening attacks by someone outside the household.

I have not seen how what you term "...excessively lax gun laws in the US is that it amplifies domestic abuse." How many of these abuse incidents end with gun violence when compared with incidents which do not? While women may be more likely than men to support stricter gun control laws," millions of other women choose to arm themselves from a more likely threat: violence from outside the home.

Thanks for this discussion.

[gejohnston]

3. late again

This is a good example of how the pro-gun voices downplay the damage caused by gun misuse. Often they talk only of deaths, and when they do speak of the wounded they'll give you the impression that they're mainly flesh wounds that heal. The reality is many people are left with brain or spinal cord damage. And what's always left out are the relatives, friends and loved ones who are left emotionally and psychologically damaged.

You realize murder suicides are kind of common in Japan, don't you? The only difference is that they count the murder part as suicides too. Part of why their suicide rate is four times our murder rate. Since they don't use guns, it is not on your radar.

If you think that was an attempt at comic relief, then you either need a shrink now or you have been out of the US too long.

We do? Meanwhile your side pretend murder and wounding by other means do not exist, or you simply don't care because it does not serve your purpose. How could I say such a thing? Because instead of looking at murder or suicide rates, you focus on "gun deaths". While it is nice to pontificate on subjects you know little to nothing about, quoting talking points cranked out by Republican ran "progressive" organizations the reality is much deeper than you think. There is another side that your side does not think of or care about. The law of unintended consequences applies both ways. At best there would be a one for one cancellation. A life saved here would be off set by a murder or rape someplace else. Using Dept of Justice figures, there were about eighty such saves that same day. Shot fired or make the papers? rarely.

If you want to keep up with all the latest in gun related news, click away.

All the latest? I doubt objective and certainly include technical articles. False advertising.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162693

Oh yeah, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x439676
better luck next time.

[Divine Discontent]

4. when I read they were "unharmed", I too thought, "well, except for being traumatized from the deaths

of their family!" Been several mass shootings of late. And the argument that more people carrying guns makes things safe is so laughable I could do it right in the people's faces who say it but I probably risk my health in doing so.

If someone pulls out their gun carefully when no ones watching, they could easily kill 5 or 6 people quickly before stopped by being tackled or shot.

[gejohnston]

6. naw same amount, just making the news lately nt

[Divine Discontent]

7. oh, I agree there's shootings every day, but the mass type where 5+ are shot at just seem to be

heavy the past week, but I'll take your word on it.

best to you!

[freeplessinseattle]

12. Yep, two mass shootings in Seattle area over the weekend

13 at a car show (no life threatening injuries, and probably gang related, but rare for this area) and 7 at domestic violence incident at a casino, with two critically wounded and one in serious condition. Big news here because it is so unusual, and I really doubt that other previous mass shootings were somehow kept secret.

[mikeb302000]

13. there are 100,000 shot each year

how many do you think are traumatized in addition to those actually killed or wounded? So many family members and witnesses and loved ones, you can't count it all.

Guns are bad news, period.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. How about a breakdown by type

A shooting in self defense is a good thing

[bellcrank]

24. So what is your proposed "solution"? I've asked a dozen anti-gun people

and never get an answer.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. 100,000 out of 40-80 million firearm owners?

there are 100,000 shot each year how many do you think are traumatized in addition to those actually killed or wounded? So many family members and witnesses and loved ones, you can't count it all.

Guns are bad news, period.

The simple fact is that there 100,000 violent crimes in the United States every year, according to the FBI UCR statistics. Right now we are at a 10-year low in violent crime, by the way.

Even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner, since there are 40-80 million firearm owners in this country that means that no more than 2.5% of firearm owners can be involved in violent crimes each year.

The vast majority of firearm owners don't commit violent crimes with their firearms.

No one disputes that firearm crimes are tragic, and cause psychological as well as physical harm.

But we are not going to allow the actions of a very tiny percentage of people to be used as an excuse to restrict the rights of the rest of us.

We are not going to live in a society where everyone is at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are who wishes to abuse them. We are not going to turn the United States into an island like Utoya where no one has the means to fight back against violent criminals without engaging in a contest of physical strength with their attacker.

[SteveM]

54. I think you miss the point. Carrying firearms is a measure of self-defense:

The "right to keep and BEAR arms" is not social policy, it is a choice whereby people may lawfully carry arms for their respective defense; occasionally, such an armed citizen may thwart or lessen the casualties of an attack. While some RKBA advocates argue that carrying weapons do indeed promote a social good and is thereby social policy, the evidence to many (including myself) is still inconclusive.

But as a means of self-defense (at home or away from home), keeping and bearing arms is shown to be effective.

[KT2000]

8. my sister came close

(I posted this on another thread but fits better heree) to being shot in a shopping mall in Tacoma a few years ago. Her son remembered that he wanted to go into the Eddie Bauer store. When they got inside the store, the shooting started where they would have been had they not gone in the store. Some guy just started shooting at the people walking in the mall.

At first she was philosophical about the whole thing. But the truth is - she brings it up often and it has been years. I don't think she realizes how much she does talk about it. It changed her.

[mikeb302000]

9. yes, the damage of gun violence

is difficult to calculate. For sure it goes far beyond the available stats.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. As does the safety and security they provide

The one uncollected (and arguably uncollectable) metric is how many times the display of a weapon stops things from escalating. Both sides make claims that suit their agendas. However, until you can reasonably account for that, you are not presenting a valid picture of the impact of personal firearms in society. Then again, that is clearly not your agenda

[iverglas]

42. MY agenda?

Hahahaha.

Funny how, awash as it is in guns, the US still has all that violent crime.

The one uncollected (and arguably uncollectable) metric is how many times the display of a weapon stops things from escalating. Both sides make claims that suit their agendas. However, until you can reasonably account for that, you are not presenting a valid picture of the impact of personal firearms in society.

I'm to "reasonably account" for eyewash? C'mon, Kleck claimed to have collected it, and I and others more dedicated have shown it for the eyewash it is.

From memory, his "data" were that enough people reported their belief that they averted a death by doing something with their gunz that there would have been multiple times more homicides in the US in his five-year period than there actually were.

My question is: how come it seems that only people with gunz on their persons found themselves in such life-threatening situations?

Surely multiple times more people who did NOT have a gun within reach must have experienced similar situations, given that there are simply multiple -- big multiple -- times more people in the US at any given time who do not have a gun within reach.

How come a goodly fraction of them aren't dead??


My agenda is the reduction of harm. I know what yours is. ;)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. While your agenda is quite clear, I was not responding to one of your posts

[Atypical Liberal]

28. That's a cop out.

For sure it goes far beyond the available stats.

This is the position of someone trying to frame an argument with no data to substantiate their claims.

[iverglas]

43. no, it's you failing to ... understand

"Available statistics" do not account for the life-altering trauma suffered by people who suffered no physical injury, or who were not even the direct victims of firearms violence.

The sister of a client of mine was shot dead about 25 years ago by an abusive ex-partner which an illegally obtained handgun. I could tell you about the effects on two extended families; they were dramatic. They show up in no statistics anywhere.

Yes, this was Canada. Other than the teenaged son of a former intimate partner of mine who had killed himself with his father's hunting weapon before I met him, about 35 years ago, that is the one and only person I know personally (and I really only knew her sister) who has been injured or killed by firearm.

And actually, if you think there are no data about the secondary effects of firearms violence, you just haven't been looking.

Personal trauma, economic costs, community trauma and underdevelopment ... you'll find them all.

[Atypical Liberal]

44. I understand fine.

I understand that the available statistics paint such a terrible picture for the anti-firearm crowd that they have to resort to vague notions as a fallback position.

And actually, if you think there are no data about the secondary effects of firearms violence, you just haven't been looking.

Personal trauma, economic costs, community trauma and underdevelopment ... you'll find them all.

Then the people making the case for such things should easily be able to provide them.

[DanTex]

45. Yes, it is pretty easy to find evidence in the scientific literature for these secondary effects.

For example, here's a study that looks into the effects of gun violence on children, beyond just physical and into psychological trauma:
http://webspace.utexas.edu/klw584/class%20blog%20info.pdf

And there are others, e.g., from the intro to this study:

The effect of firearms on the mental and physical wellbeing of youths has become a central concern as a public health issue.

...

As well as a physical hazard in the lives of youths, exposure to firearm violence places the psychological welfare of youths at risk. Many studies have indicated that the violence of firearms creates psychological havoc for youths. Today's youths fear being shot (Powell, Sheehan, & Christoffel, 1996), and a study of youths in and around a housing development indicated that violence exposure was related to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and depression (DuRant, Getts, Cadenhead, Emans, & Woods, 1995).

Of course, most gun zealots reject peer reviewed science and instead hide behind NRA propaganda. But if you can get past the anti-science denialism, then there's plenty of evidence for the harmful effects of gun violence, well beyond just physical injuries from gunshot wounds.

[iverglas]

46. here's the statement you objected to

yes, the damage of gun violence
is difficult to calculate. For sure it goes far beyond the available stats.

The anecdotes I have provided do all this is necessary to substantiate that statement.

The damage to the families and extended of the two victims of firearms violence whom I have known personally (the families; I did not know the victims) was long-lasting and deep.

I'm sure you don't claim not to believe that.

How would you calculate it? Health care costs, economic costs ... how does one calculate the costs of the effects of emotional trauma? I think "difficult" is a fair assessment.

You thought that demanding data in response to the statement made was a reasonable demand. It isn't. No statement was made about what the damage is. It was described as difficult to calculate and going far beyond the available stats. I'd call that self-evident, but anecdotal evidence is perfectly adequate to substantiate it.

If you want to try to refute the statement, go ahead and give it a shot. You'll look pretty silly, but go ahead.

[GKirk]

60. Do you imagine...

...that she would not have died at his hands if he hadn't gained access to the illegal handgun?

"The sister of a client of mine was shot dead about 25 years ago by an abusive ex-partner which an illegally obtained handgun. I could tell you about the effects on two extended families; they were dramatic. They show up in no statistics anywhere."

[iverglas]

105. yes, I do imagine

He climbed in a window of the family home where she had returned to live when she left him. He shot her and one other family member (who was not killed).

There were several people present at the time. How exactly do YOU imagine he would have killed her without a firearm?

Try out your imagining on the case raised this week in this forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=440291&mesg_id=440291


In the case of my client's sister, while the individual was gang-involved, it still would not have been a simple matter for him to obtain a handgun. He could easily have climbed in the window with a knife. Why didn't he?

[beevul]

148. Predictable.

" How exactly do YOU imagine he would have killed her without a firearm?"

Ask a question, in a context that paints a picture of "how would he have killed her under those circumstances, using differnet methodology"...

While completely ignoring the fact that the circumstances chosen by someone in which they may wish to kill someone else, are PART of that methodology.


Its really just glossing over the fact that you're hiding your crystal ball behind that verbiage. And then asking another poster to use theirs. Slick. Not.


Someone intent on killing someone else, chances are, is going to kill someone else, regardless what methodology they use, and what implements that methodology involves.

[X_Digger]

14. dupe topic -- and blogspam. n/t

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Duplicate Topics and Spamming

Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted.

[rrneck]

15. More?

More blog flogging.


Here's a tip. When you produce a number like "100,000 shot each year", it's common courtesy to produce a cite to evidence in the form of a link. But then again, common courtesy might be beyond anyone who so shamelessly promotes themselves.

Why don't you actually examine the issue objectively instead of simply trying to mine the feelings of others for, well, whatever you think you are going to get out of it? Of course people are killed, injured, and traumatized by others wielding firearms. It's a horrifying experience for them and everyone around them. No less horrifying when someone gets brutalized and are unable to defend themselves.

A firearm can be used for offense or defense. The issue is circuitous and difficult to understand for that reason. But it's also easy to spot a blinkered ideologue or enterprising junior bloviator because they focus on one aspect of firearms to the exclusion of the other. Now, before you trot off to Google a mass of statistics trying to count how many people engage in acts of violence and balance that against the number of defensive gun uses and use those two simple numbers to make some sort of case, remember that people's lives don't easily fit into such a sophomoric dichotomy. When you try to make the complexities of reality fit into some sort of simple ideology rather than try to produce an ideology that people can actually use you are revealed as a not too bright authoritarian ideologue. And that's hardly a progressive thing to be.

Now, run along and actually study the issue instead of trying to start your own self serving cheer leading squad because your transparent self promotion is quite tedious.

[DanTex]

22. The serious scientific studies show that only a very small fraction of gun uses are truly defensive

Regarding the 100,000 shootings a year number, this statistic is common knowledge to anyone marginally informed about gun violence, a group that you are evidently not a member of.

And, speaking of "blinkered ideologues", I see you have resorted to the lowest-common-denominator tactic of branding people who disagree with you as authoritarians. I guess that, being so low on facts that the 100,000 shootings a year number comes as a surprise to you, all that you have left is empty NRA talking points. On the other hand, if you're interested in what scientists have to say about the issue, here's an example of a recent overview that covers many of the key points:
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

The fantasy of vigilante gunslingers saving the day is handled pretty soundly:

There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.

However, for most contemporary Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

And now back to the OP, which makes the important point that even the 100,000 number underestimates the actual toll of gun violence because it does not account for the psychological trauma. I can understand that this fact makes some gun extremists uncomfortable, and that's why you prefer to ignore the facts and respond with accusations of authoritarianism. But it's still the truth: shootings are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage from gun crimes. Moreover, as the paper I linked to above discusses, the 100,000 only counts people who have actually been shot, but guns can also be used for coercion and intimidation. Thus the number of criminal uses of a gun is significantly greater than 100,000, because there are many gun crimes in which the criminal does not actually shoot anybody, but uses the gun to achieve other criminal objectives (e.g. robbery, rape, intimidation). The fact of the matter is that

Again this is a good place to look to science rather than NRA talking points. For example, from the same paper:

A study of battered women in emergency shelters in California (a state in which more than 600 000 women each year experience intimate partner violence) found that if there were a gun in the home, nearly two thirds of the male partners involved had used the gun to scare, threaten, or harm the women. In contrast, women rarely used the gun in self-defense; fewer than 7% of these women had used a gun in self-defense and only against batterers who had used a gun against them.

Yet again, quite clearly the amount of harm done by guns in domestic violence far exceeds the self-defense. Study after study finds the same thing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. That is scacely a serious scientific study...

The key issue no one can effectively gather data on is how many times the display of a weapon stops things from escalating. Both sides make claims that suit their agendas. However, until that can be reasonably accounted for, it not presenting a valid picture of the impact of personal firearms in society. Also there are a fraction of the population who live in rural areas where firearms are required tools.

Your self serving studies are generally debunked in days...

[Cirque du So-What]

32. What are *your* credentials that you can decide what is and is not 'serious scientific study'?

Just askin'. After all, I could call myself Perfesser, throw around 50-cent words to give myself the aura of...oh, what is the word I'm looking for...starts with a 'P'...pomposity?...nope...pretentiousness?...naw...pedagogy! That's the one!

Seems I need more than just your word that the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine is 'not scientific,' seeing that it's a peer-reviewed publication & all. You insulted another member with the 'self-serving' (yes, there is usually a hyphen in between 'self' & 'serving,' Professor) crack, then followed up with the claim that the study has been debunked...well, let the debunkin' begin, Professor! You can't leave such a claim hangin' out there without backing up your specious claim, yunno (oh, heavens! One of the unwashed masses can sling 'specious'! Yeah, that's right, and it's not just an affectation!)

[DanTex]

33. The "both sides" argument here is no more credible here than with evolution or global warming.

And, no, it's not a scientific study, it's what's known as a survey paper. It reviews and summarizes other studies, of which there are many. If you are actually a professor, then you will know what that is.

As far as describing studies as "self-serving" and "debunked", yes, that is exactly what people always say when the credible science is on the opposite side. The "debunking" of course, never actually happens, except perhaps in some dark gun-ridden corner of the internet. In peer reviewed journals (which I assume you also know about), this debunking has never taken place. Indeed, I notice you have nothing substantive to criticize here other then empty adjectives.

Now, if you really want to discuss DGU estimates, I've recently written a rather long and detailed examination of various reasons why the phone survey numbers the NRA likes to cite are grossly overestimated. As with global warming, the more detailed and closer to the actual research you get, the more clear it becomes that there are not "two sides" with equally credible arguments.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x428987#436540

But it takes some effort to look at the evidence at that detailed level, so I don't expect everyone to do that. For most people, just the fact that it's the scientific community vs the NRA and a handful of questionable pro-gun studies (primarily Lott and Kleck) is really enough indication of what is really going on. But if you want to understand some of the reasons that the scientific community doesn't buy the NRA propaganda, then go ahead and read that other post of mine, and beyond that, start looking directly at the studies being discussed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. The opening line of your length screed discredits anything "academic" you may claim

come back when you have something credible to say...

[DanTex]

50. Yeah I figured...

Don't worry, "Professor", you're not the first pro-gun person to run and hide at the sight of empirical evidence and close examination of the academic literature.

Like I said, the closer you get to the actual science, the less the denialists have to say...

[gejohnston]

49. while they are at it, they can read the whole discussion and not just yours

But it takes some effort to look at the evidence at that detailed level, so I don't expect everyone to do that. For most people, just the fact that it's the scientific community vs the NRA and a handful of questionable pro-gun studies (primarily Lott and Kleck) is really enough indication of what is really going on. But if you want to understand some of the reasons that the scientific community doesn't buy the NRA propaganda, then go ahead and read that other post of mine, and beyond that, start looking directly at the studies being discussed.

First, I would not describe Kleck as pro gun. He started out with a hypothesis, and found that the data supported the opposite. What you define as the scientific community, started with a conclusion and tried to make the research to fit it, just like the creationists.
True, the NRA likes Kleck's studies because it serves their purpose, but he has no connection to them. That is quite different than the crew that not only takes money from the Joyce Foundation, but have ties to VPC and Brady.

[DanTex]

75. By all means

Perhaps you could help out and point to the part where, for example, you or someone else explains why Kleck's DGU estimates yield numbers that are out of line with police records, NCVS results, hospital records by factors of 10 or more.

Or maybe the part where someone explains why anyone should believe Kleck's unevidenced assumption that the false positive rate of his survey was well below 1%, much lower than what you generally find in phone surveys of this sort.

Oh wait, none of that ever happened.


What we did get a lot of the usual: empty attacks on the intellectual integrity of the (many) researchers who have done studies that turn out not to support NRA talking points. For example, this last post of yours.

I'll say it again, the closer you get to the actual science, the less the denialists have to say.

[gejohnston]

80. you first

Perhaps you could help out and point to the part where, for example, you or someone else explains why Kleck's DGU estimates yield numbers that are out of line with police records, NCVS results, hospital records by factors of 10 or more.

If you ever read his work, you would know. There are a number of reasons. First, the police are not going to show up and make a report over "he saw my gun and ran" Second, ERs report gun shot wounds to the police, the criminal would have to explain it, so they don't go. Besides, shots are rarely fired.

empty attacks on the intellectual integrity of the (many) researchers who have done studies that turn out not to support NRA talking points. For example, this last post of yours.

Project much? You use empty attacks on Kleck, Kates, Mauser etc. simply because they don't conform to your world view. The same few people who take money from Joyce? Like Cook who got the same result as Kleck using Kleck's methods, and spent ten pages trying to explain Kleck and his methods were bullshit? Why would I question his intellectual integrity? Kleck does not support NRA talking points. His personal views on guns are nothing like mine or the NRA's.

I'll say it again, the closer you get to the actual science, the less the denialists have to say.

Strange coming from you, you are the denialist in this case. You will continue to keep your ideological blinders on, most people do.

Or maybe the part where someone explains why anyone should believe Kleck's unevidenced assumption that the false positive rate of his survey was well below 1%, much lower than what you generally find in phone surveys of this sort.

He does? Can you point to where he said such a thing? A direct quote from his work would be nice, and not some VPC propaganda.

[DanTex]

84. LOL. Have *you* actually read the Kleck-Gertz study?

I'm starting to doubt it, otherwise you would be able to come up with something more convincing than "if you ever read his work, you would know". Of course I've read Kleck-Gertz, that's why I'm able to discuss it in detail in a way that you are not. And, unlike you, I've also read several other DGU studies -- because, unlike you, my approach is to read all the research and then see what makes sense.

Anyway, it's nice to see you finally attempt a substantive discussion after putting it off for so long. Let's see how it turned out...

There are a number of reasons. First, the police are not going to show up and make a report over "he saw my gun and ran"

Pure speculation and totally wrong: If a legitimate crime was attempted, a police report is actually filed. Are you suggesting, for example, that attempted robberies rapes don't show up in police records? But actually, we don't need to speculate: in order for the numbers to make sense about 90-95% of the DGUs in the phone survey would have to go unnoticed by the police, but Kleck's own survey indicates that the police were notified 64% of the time (I guess you missed that part of the study).

Second, ERs report gun shot wounds to the police, the criminal would have to explain it, so they don't go. Besides, shots are rarely fired.

Again, this is all speculation, which runs contrary to actual numbers. Surveys of criminals indicate that they actually do seek hospital treatment for GSWs a majority of the time. As for how often shots are fired, again it doesn't seem like you know the data very well, because Kleck's own numbers indicate that over 8% of DGUs involve not only a shot being fired, but actually a hit. That would imply that 200,000 criminals are shot during DGUs, a totally impossible number, since this is twice as many as the total number of gunshot wounds treated in hospitals. Also, as I've already pointed out, even if we accept your nonsensical speculative excuse that criminals don't go to hospitals, only 400 criminals were killed by self defense shootings during that year (unless you want to claim that dead criminals somehow avoid going to the morgue...), which would imply that only 0.2% of the criminals shot during DGUs die, which is totally implausible.

Also, I see you ignore the fact that I've pointed out multiple times, including in this last post, and that other longer post, that phone survey DGUs numbers are way out of line with NCVS. There is an obvious reason for this: NCVS is a much higher quality survey: larger sample size, people are interviewed in detail every six months (helps avoid telescoping and false positives), etc. Beyond that, it also turns out that the NCVS estimates of DGUs (about 20-25 times smaller than Kleck's) line up quite well with police and hospital records.

The fact is that multiple sources of external validation, each of which are more believable than a phone survey (police reports, hospital records, and NCVS), indicates that the true number is in the ballpark of the NCVS estimate of 100,000. And the flaws in Kleck's methodology have been shown repeatedly in multiple other studies (Cook/Ludwig, McDowall, Hemenway), all of which conclude that the 2.5M estimate is absurdly high. The "true believers" like yourself are left trying to make up sorry excuses to explain why all these DGUs leave no trace of evidence anywhere except for the phone survey. But nobody outside of a small circle of true believers takes the Kleck numbers seriously any more.

>Or maybe the part where someone explains why anyone should believe Kleck's unevidenced assumption that the false positive rate of his survey was well below 1%, much lower than what you generally find in phone surveys of this sort.

He does? Can you point to where he said such a thing? A direct quote from his work would be nice, and not some VPC propaganda.

Umm... This might be a stretch, but let's see if we can get you to understand the sensitivity of survey results to false positives, shall we? In this particular study, the total number of "yes" answers was about 1% of those surveyed. A "false positive" is when someone says "yes" even though the real answer is no. That means if the false positive rate is 1%, then practically all of the "yes" answers would be false positives.

Get it? So unless Kleck can demonstrate a false positive rate of far lower than 1%, then his survey results do not yield a credible estimate of DGU.

And no, Kleck never does ever explain why he has a false positive rate this low. That's why I call it an "unevidenced assumption". And that's my whole point: without justifying this extraordinary rate of accuracy -- well beyond what anyone can reasonably expect -- then his results are not credible.

I guess that you (and Kleck) believe that the fact that Kleck totally ignores the problem of false positives, means it just disappears. But that's not how it works. The burden here is on Kleck to provide some quantifiable evidence, speculation will not do. Because it is pretty much common knowledge that in phone surveys you usually get false positive rates of higher than 1%. For example, if you do phone surveys where the true number is known -- for example, if you ask people if they are NRA members, or if they subscribe to Sports Illustrated, or even if they have had contact with aliens -- you can actually measure false positive rates (by comparing the results to the actual number of NRA members, etc), and the false positive rate generally comes out to 2% or more.

So there is absolutely no reason to believe that the false positive rate for this particular phone survey is uniquely low. Which means that the survey results are simply not credible.

[gejohnston]

86. yes I did and you and I doubt if you did

but I think you project.
multiple other studies (Cook/Ludwig, McDowall, Hemenway), are not legitimate studies, these people are not scientists, the problems have been pointed out to you with their studies including Cook coming up with same numbers as Kleck.

Even if the low number were 100K, which I would prefer because that would mean our society would not be that screwed up, that would still be 30 rapes, armed robberies etc. deterred per day.

[DanTex]

88. Yet again: you ignore the substance and just stick to empty allegations and one-liners...

In a way, I get it. Rather than trying to defend the indefensible (e.g. by adressing issues like false positives), you just try and divert attention by trying to pretend that only studies that support your personal biases are "legitimate". Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if you even believe your own BS, it's getting so ludicrous.

Also, I notice you're back to the Nixonian claim that "the problems have been pointed out". LOL. Is it too much of a burden to show where the problems with Hemenway, Cook/Ludwig, and McDowall studies been pointed out, and by whom? I guess doing that would risk you having to talk about the content of the studies, which as we have all seen, is definitely not one of your strong suits. But this way, you try and save face while avoiding the substance entirely.

As for the bogus claim you throw out, that Cook/Ludwig "came up with the same number as Kleck", as I pointed out in the other thread: if you read the actual CL study (as opposed to reading about it on some gun blog) you find it was mainly about methodology, and they very convincingly show that Kleck-Gertz style phone surveys do not give reliable estimates of DGUs. It's as if I said "Only a moron would claim that there are 2.5M DGUs every year" and then you jump out and reply with "SEE! Even YOU admit 'there are 2.5M DGUs a year'!"

Finally to your last point:

Even if the low number were 100K, which I would prefer because that would mean our society would not be that screwed up, that would still be 30 rapes, armed robberies etc. deterred per day.

Wrong yet again. Your statement assumes that there every claimed DGU successfully averts a serious crime, and that there would be no other way to avert said crime. Both of these are false. In particular, there is no credible evidence that shows that attempting to use a gun defensively actually improves the outcome for the victim of a crime in general. It can go both ways -- for example, you might shoot the criminal, but you might also increase the risk of being shot yourself. Also, even if a victim does decide to resist, there is no credible evidence that shows that using a gun is better than other defensive or evasive actions (e.g. run away, call the police, use another weapon, etc.) Moreover, not all DGUs are actually "defensive", for example, many involve escalating arguments where "the other guy started it", and in fact both parties would probably claim to be "defending" themselves.

The gun zealots like to simply assume all of these things, and therefore "DGU" translates into "deterred crime", but the actual facts and studies do not support these assumptions.

[gejohnston]

90. the studies you love

are substance free. Whine about my "baseless" attacks all you want. Does not change the fact that they received grant money to get a predetermined result. Yes I read it, and I read a couple of Kleck's books. I read CL also. They spent ten pages trying to explain why they should not have came up with the numbers they have.

Your statement assumes that there every claimed DGU successfully averts a serious crime, and that there would be no other way to avert said crime. Both of these are false. In particular, there is no credible evidence that shows that attempting to use a gun defensively actually improves the outcome for the victim of a crime in general.

That was based your your statement, I took it at face value. I did not assume anything about another way to avert said crime, not that it matters since I was not there.

Also, even if a victim does decide to resist, there is no credible evidence that shows that using a gun is better than other defensive or evasive actions (e.g. run away, call the police, use another weapon, etc.) Moreover, not all DGUs are actually "defensive", for example, many involve escalating arguments where "the other guy started it", and in fact both parties would probably claim to be "defending" themselves.

This BS has been debunked by criminologists back in the 1970s, Brady does not even took it off their site. Your definition of "credible" seems to be what does not conform to your preconceived ideas. Besides, you nor I have any right to dictate what someone else should do in a situation we are not in and know nothing about.

If anyone is making empty allegations, you are. You sound like the climate science deniers that quote studies done paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. You still insist on the same few people who take money from the same place are doing real science. Even while asked, you could not come up with more than three where none of those people were involved.

Since you are saying that Kleck, Kates, Mauser et al are either dishonest or incompetent, what evidence do you have outside of the usual suspects? You are saying as much, with no evidence even attempt at it. Again, you project much?

[DanTex]

93. Still unable to address the content of the studies directly I see...

It's getting kinda funny. Are you ever going to address the false positives or any of the other substantive issues? It's looking like no. Not particularly surprising.

This BS has been debunked by criminologists back in the 1970s, Brady does not even took it off their site. Your definition of "credible" seems to be what does not conform to your preconceived ideas.

LOL. Got a citation? Any evidence? Kleck-Gertz study didn't come out until the 90's and the most serious DGU work wasn't until after that. As far as I know, Hemenway was the first to look beyond the actual number of DGUs to see if DGUs were actually defensive -- he showed accounts of self-reported DGUs to an independent panel of judges, who found that most were not socially beneficial and probably illegal. Beyond that, there have been many studies (e.g. Kellermann) that have shown that the risks associated with either keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun far outweighs the benefits (see the article I cited above). If you've got some credible evidence about the defensive benefit of owning or carrying a gun, I assume you could actually provide a citation or else give some details about the methodology, how they came to that conclusion. And I mean some kind of study or scientific analysis, not the opinion of Don Kates.

But, as we both know, you have no such evidence, which is why instead of substance we only get vague references to "criminologists in the 70s".

Since you are saying that Kleck, Kates, Mauser et al are either dishonest or incompetent, what evidence do you have outside of the usual suspects?

By "usual suspects", I assume you mean you mean Zimring, Cook, Loftin, McDowall, Ludwig, Hemenway, Azrael, Miller, Killias, Duggan, Ayres, Donahue, Wiersema, Vernick, Teret, Kellermann, Wintemute, Braga, etc. Go ahead, attack the integrity of all those people. While you're at it, you will need to go after Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UChicago, Duke, UCDavis, UMaryland, and a bunch of other top universities for hiring them. Not to mention JAMA, NEJM, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and all the other peer-reviewed journals where their research has appeared. Have fun with that.

Really, I don't have anything against Kleck personally. I'm sure he's a good person. But the fact of the matter is, I've read some of his studies, and they simply don't hold up to scrutiny. Unlike you, I prefer to deal with the actual content of studies. That's why I've pointed out many specific flaws in Kleck's work, and done so in some detail, and so far you haven't been able to address any of these substantive points at all -- actually that's not quite true, you tried briefly, but you quickly gave it up when it became apparent that you are in way over your head, and you actually know very little about the content. Even when it comes to your hero Gary Kleck and his influential DGU study, you understanding is entirely superficial.

So instead we get more broad generalities and irrelevant tangents about the American Petroleum Institute. If something Kates and/or Mauser has done that you thing is worth noting, I suggest you provide a link or citation. I haven't found their writings persuasive either. But I'm guessing that we won't see any links, because the one thing that terrifies you senseless is the thought of actual discussion of the content of the studies rather than silly name-calling about who is "biased" and who is "legitimate".

[gejohnston]

99. I have, we have,

and real scientists have. Then you retreat to whining about denialism and Glenn Beck. No point in trying to convince each other. Those top universities hired them as economists and MDs, which I am sure they are good at. But, their attempts at criminology is pure nonsense. I asked for a study done by a criminologist not underwritten by advocacy group, you have not. Critical thinking 101: a series of studies by people outside of their specialties, underwritten by an organization that also gives grants to advocacy groups that would benefit from the findings of the studies is a big red flag. Why is that hard to understand? How is that not reason to question their intellectual honesty? Why should I take it more seriously than one done by actual criminologists funded by DoJ, Clinton's DoJ at that?

[DanTex]

104. Keep avoiding content...

This "criminology" nonsense I've responded to several times. Several of the names on that list are criminologists: Zimring, Cook, Ludwig, Killias, Loftin, McDowall, Braga are criminologists, and there are many others. Does the truth matter at all to you, or are you going to just keep fabricating? Or maybe you didn't know those guys are criminologists. I guess that's not really a big surprise...

And I'll repeat again: you have absolutely nothing cogent to say about the content of the studies. The only thing you are capable of doing is attacking the integrity of the researchers, and even there most of what you say is false.

If it were true that their research were so bad, then you ought to be able to come up with something, anything content-related to criticize. But you have nothing. You also have been able to say nothing content related in response to my detailed criticism of the Kleck study.

I wonder why.

And really it says a lot. If you aren't able to make any actual substantive criticism, one can only assume that the research must actually be pretty darn high quality.

[gejohnston]

108. We have, for the past few months. Cook and Ludwig are

economists, these other guys I have to look up and read up on. You don't read closely. You said nothing cogent or otherwise of Kleck, Kates, or Mauser. You bring up Lott as a straw man. Not lately.
Over the past few months, when someone, be it me or anyone else, point out specific flaws, you rant about denialism, which more often than not got deleted by the mods. So, I don't feel like playing anymore. I'll read up on Loftin, McDowall, and Braga. I'll look for their studies.

Like any other poll, margin of error is based on sample size. The larger sample the smaller the margin. Entry level political science. Is there a reason why this poll should be any different?

[DanTex]

112. Actually, Cook and Ludwig are considered criminologists, as much as economists.

Cook is a honorary fellow in the American Society of Criminology. Ludwig was a member of the National Policy Committee of ASC. The only person I've ever found who objects to considering them criminologists is you, because it helps you out in your lifelong quest of avoiding any sort of substantive discussion of content of gun violence studies.

Nothing cogent about Kleck? LOL. I just made a whole bunch of detailed comments which you haven't able to respond to in the least. Actually, just scroll up a bit. It's right above your post where you totally ignored all of the substantive points (OK that doesn't narrow it down much...).

As far as Kates and Mauser, you haven't introduced a single article by them that you are willing to stand behind. At all. You're just name dropping. I'm not aware of any DGU study by either of them, which is what this discussion was about until you ignored the content completely and changed the subject to whether Phil Cook should be considered a criminologist.

But still, find me a study by Kates or Mauser, and then we can discuss. I know you won't, though, because then you might have to engage in a substantive discussion. You're much better when all you have to do is shuffle around names.

[gejohnston]

117. Congrats to him

I'm sure it was not for something done for the Joyce Foundation. That said, Kleck won the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology for his first book.

You did? You must have me confused with someone else. All of comments I found was that you disagreed without a good explanation of why. It is kind of like another poster who used the "he is full of it and you know it", or words to that effect. I always ignore those.
As far as DGUs being legal or not, is non issue. H's trip issue made a nice red herring, but I fail to see the relevance at hand. Did H provide evidence that he asked the judges, why those DGUs would have been illegal? Not that it matters, because the specific question was how many, not how many by only law abiding. It did not contradict anything in Kleck's study at all. It did not contradict anything Kleck wrote or said.


I have no such lifelong quest. I think you do, although what exactly you are looking for escapes me. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?

[DanTex]

119. Whether DGUs are illegal or socially desirable is a huge issue.

Just because someone claims a DGU doesn't mean it was actually "defensive". A lot of claimed DGUs are actually offensive criminal acts upon closer inspection, but the person committing the act then goes on to claim that the use was "defensive". For example, situations where an argument escalates and one person draws a gun, for example.

That's why the Hemenway study is so important. If the majority of the self-reported DGUs are actually cases where the presence of a gun made things worse or facilitated a criminal act (which is what the evidence suggests) then citing DGU numbers as beneficial effects of gun ownership is totally unwarranted. If "DGU" is to have any meaning at all, it must be restricted to genuine acts of self-defense.

[gejohnston]

133. depends on the context

If, but that if was never shown. How many of these illegal DGUs were:
resisting in violation of a duty to retreat law?
or otherwise law abiding person with unlicensed carry if required?
Legal or not, those would be genuine acts of self defense.

If the majority of the self-reported DGUs are actually cases where the presence of a gun made things worse or facilitated a criminal act (which is what the evidence suggests) then citing DGU numbers as beneficial effects of gun ownership is totally unwarranted.

and that is the reason Joyce Foundation pays for these shill studies. I read them, we discussed them as have others.

[DanTex]

136. Again, you're trying to claim DGUs are "good things", you show some proof.

Kleck puts up some absurd numbers, makes no attempt at all to validate whether DGUs are actually really "defensive" socially beneficial acts in any independent way. But you have no problem believing him.

Hemenway at least sought two independent sources of validation: a panel of judges, and a panel of criminology students. Both determined that the majority were not legitimate acts of self defense, overlooking whether the gun possession was legal. That way it wasn't just him looking at the data and making the judgements.

I find it hilarious that you are willing to simply take Kleck's word claiming that his DGUs were "real", despite the total lack of validation, and then you go to extremes to doubt the independent judgements of the criminology students and judges that Hemenway used. It shows a lot about your personal bias and lack of scientific standards.

[gejohnston]

141. you have not read Kleck I take it?

If Kleck's numbers are absurd, so are Cook's.
How are DGUs bad things?
I would call this one a good one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440356

[iverglas]

152. one thing it does show

is the reach of the gun militants and their agenda.

You'd be hard pressed to find a poster in this forum who has read any of these things -- Kleck, the debunking of Kleck, or any other relevant primary sources.

Google the keywords and you can see what they're reading and where they're reading it, all pre-digested and pooped out in its misshapen glory.




and again I can't spell a five-word subject line ...

[DanTex]

120. Margin of error and false positives are completely different things.

Like any other poll, margin of error is based on sample size. The larger sample the smaller the margin. Entry level political science. Is there a reason why this poll should be any different?

Increasing sample size doesn't reduce the false positive rate. It only reduces the variance. That's because false positives are inherent in the population -- a certain fraction of people will respond to a survey claiming a DGU even if they haven't had one. Surveying more people doesn't change that fraction.

The reason this is such a big problem here is because the true occurrence rate is so low: only about 1% of the respondents actually reported a DGU. In this situation, a 1% false positive rate (i.e. 1% of people for whom the answer is "no" actually say "yes") would imply that almost all of the "yes" answers were actually false. That's how the math comes out. If the true occurrence rate were around 50%, it would all be OK -- a 1% false positive rate would push the number from 50% to 50.5%, which still is a pretty accurate estimate. That's why it's really really hard to use surveys like this to accurately measure rare phenomena.

Again, nobody is claiming that huge numbers of people are reporting false DGUs. Just around 1%. If you know anything about surveys, you know that 1% of people will say just about anything. And it's been shown that in other phone surveys, where the true occurrence rate is known, false positive rates are generally greater than 1%. Kleck gives no quantifiable evidence why his false positive rate is actually this extraordinarily low. And, when you compare Kleck's numbers to various other "sanity check" measurements related to DGUs (e.g. police, NCVS, GSWs), it becomes quite clear that most "Kleck DGUs" are actually false positives.

[gejohnston]

129. false negatives matter too

If we were to go with Cook's numbers, 1.1 million DGUs does not fit my definition of rare, even if he did spend ten pages trying to explain why he and Kleck were wrong. There is no credible evidence that they are rare.

First, if a similar article were written about Kleck, I am sure you would be screaming "political bias". I would agree. Hemenway is motivated by politics, not science.

Hemenway says he doesn't’t have a personal issue with guns; he has shot firearms, but found the experience "loud and dirty—and there’s no exercise"—as opposed to the "paint-ball" survival games he enjoys, which involve not only shooting but "a lot of running." He also happens to live in a state with strong gun laws. "It’s nice," he says, "to have raised my son in Massachusetts, where he is so much safer."

http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html

Um, has he looked at Massachusetts's violent crime rate compared to say, Vermont or Wyoming? I did not know he was in to paint ball. If that is an attack on his intellectual integrity, so be it. I do question it.
Now for the more specific:
How did Hemenway define as a false positive? He did imply that a major source of false positives would be rednecks wanting to brag events that did not happen. Speculation. Hemenway also implied, with no evidence, that the private polling company working for Kleck falsified the data to fit Kleck's agenda. If that is Hemenway's method of weeding out false positives, then the percentage does not really matter? Kleck had no agenda, is not "pro gun" as you describe him. How would you adjust for false negatives? Hemenway ignored them. In Kleck's original report, many of the people were hesitant to answer questions about gun ownership. Kleck believed false negatives outnumbered false positives. Either way, Hemenway
That makes sense, since gun owners tend not to advertise the fact to people they don't know for various reasons. One of those reasons would be another wise law abiding citizen (who is not white, rich, well connected, or a retired cop) of NYC or DC.
Back to those illegal DGUs. OK, maybe some were gangster v gangster. How do those compare to illegal acts by otherwise law abiding people such as:
resisting, violating a "duty to retreat" law?
an illegally possessed/carried weapon?
Since the NCVS was conducted by DoJ, the above reasons would explain false negatives.

This leads me back a few posts:
What evidence is there a wounded felon would be dumb enough to go to an ER? Kind of counter intuitive is it not? I would like to see that cite.

Neither study deals with using a gun to protect someone other than him/her self. Nor do they include DGUs by minors and private security guards performing their duty.

[DanTex]

134. The false positive rate is much more important when the true positive rate is very low.

By "rare", I simply mean 1% of the sample or less. Everyone agrees the prevalence of DGUs is at most around 1%. And basic math indicates that when the true rate is around 1%, the false positive rate is far more important than the false negative rate. A 10% false negative rate creates less error in this situation than a 1% false positive rate.

Here's why: Since (at least) 99% of the population is a "no DGU", if 1% of those people falsely say yes, that creates a total false positive amount of 0.99% of all the people surveyed -- almost 1%. Since (at most) 1% of the population is a true "yes", if 10% of those falsely say "no", that still only accounts for 0.1% of all the people surveyed, much less than 0.99%. That's why this kind of survey is so much more sensitive to false positives.

How did Hemenway define as a false positive? He did imply that a major source of false positives would be rednecks wanting to brag events that did not happen. Speculation. Hemenway also implied, with no evidence, that the private polling company working for Kleck falsified the data to fit Kleck's agenda. If that is Hemenway's method of weeding out false positives, then the percentage does not really matter? Kleck had no agenda, is not "pro gun" as you describe him. How would you adjust for false negatives? Hemenway ignored them. In Kleck's original report, many of the people were hesitant to answer questions about gun ownership. Kleck believed false negatives outnumbered false positives.

A false positive is any time someone who did not experience a DGU responded "yes". As I point out above, a survey with a true rate of 1% is 99 times more sensitive to false positives than false negatives. There is speculation on both sides as to possible sources of false positives and false negatives. I would say both are valid. Gun owners do view a DGU as a good thing, so there is some desirability bias. At the same time, some are reluctant to discuss their gun ownership.

However, given that a false positive rate significantly below 1% is an extraordinary thing, the burden is on Kleck to give some proof of this. And it's no surprise that Kleck believes there are more false negatives than false positives. I've read several papers by Kleck. He has a lot of mistaken beliefs that are not justified by the evidence.

Back to those illegal DGUs. OK, maybe some were gangster v gangster. How do those compare to illegal acts by otherwise law abiding people such as:
resisting, violating a "duty to retreat" law?
an illegally possessed/carried weapon?

Actually gangster vs. gangster has nothing to do with it. You're just making that up. Also, the judges were explicitly told not to take into account illegal possession. What's more, in addition to the judges, a group of criminology students was asked to determine if the DGUs were socially beneficial. Again the majority were not. Of course, there's no clear-cut way of determining whether a DGU is actually a legitimately "good thing". But we can probably we can both agree that neither Kleck nor Hemenway should probably be the ones to make that judgement. That's why you need independent panels to judge these things, something Hemenway did and Kleck did not do.

And yet again, if Kleck wants to claim a great overall benefit from all these DGUs, then the burden is on him to prove that the DGUs are legitimate. Kleck didn't even try to do this. Maybe you don't like the panel of judges idea, or the panel of criminology students. But Kleck did precisely nothing to validate the DGU claims by any sort of independent unbiased method.

Since the NCVS was conducted by DoJ, the above reasons would explain false negatives.

Yeah, but for Kleck's numbers to make sense, the NCVS would have to have a false negative rate of 95% or more. That's absurd. Really, what is more likely? That Kleck's survey has a false positive rate of 1%? Or that NCVS has a false negative rate of 95%.

And then there's the police reports. Again, we'd need 90% of more of the DGUs to not be reported to the police despite the fact that 64% of Kleck's respondents said that the police were notified.

What evidence is there a wounded felon would be dumb enough to go to an ER? Kind of counter intuitive is it not? I would like to see that cite.

That's from Hemenway's book. Moreover, as I've mentioned, here again the burden is on Kleck to defend his numbers. If you want to suggest that only 5-10% of criminals that get shot go to ER, you need to provide some evidence. Otherwise it's just speculation. Moreover, you also have to explain why only 0.2% of criminals shot during DGUs actually die. Because that's what Kleck's numbers imply. If you can't do that, Kleck's numbers are out the window. Burden on Kleck again.


As far as your attack on Hemenway, have fun. It's just as easy insinuate that Kleck is motivated by politics, not science. And I'm sure you can go down that whole list of people I gave above and make similar silly accusations. You seem to have a personal dislike for Hemenway; I don't feel the same about Kleck. Just that his research is flawed. In the end it's the science that matters.

[gejohnston]

139. you have

by inaccurately describing him as "pro gun" and "right wing", which he is neither. You also did by putting him in the same level as John Lott. I am not insinuating anything, I am frankly stating that Hemenway is motivated by politics or money and his research in this area is half baked.
Kleck had no interest if it was if DGUs were a good thing or a bad thing. His research and books are void of value judgments. That is science.
insinuate <ɪnˈsɪnjʊˌeɪt>
vb
1. (may take a clause as object) to suggest by indirect allusion, hints, innuendo, etc.
2. (tr) to introduce subtly or deviously
3. (tr) to cause (someone, esp oneself) to be accepted by gradual approaches or manoeuvres

As far as your attack on Hemenway, have fun. It's just as easy insinuate that Kleck is motivated by politics, not science. And I'm sure you can go down that whole list of people I gave above and make similar silly accusations. You seem to have a personal dislike for Hemenway; I don't feel the same about Kleck. Just that his research is flawed. In the end it's the science that matters.

I do not make silly accusations, and I don't make those lightly. I stated why and any objective person would agree. Different subject, you would agree. I have never met or correspond with Hemenway, so I no personal opinion of him. I simply pointed out evidence showing his bias and political motivation. That is after months of me and others pointing out flaws in his studies.
I never said Kleck's work was perfect or not flawed, just that it was more objective than Hemenway.
So, what about those false negatives?

[DanTex]

140. Going back to the personal attacks against researchers you disagree with, I see.

I guess you're more comfortable there.

So, what about those false negatives?

LOL. That's it? I take you understood precisely nothing about the math behind why the sensitivity to false positives is much higher than false negatives.

Sigh. But I guess not too surprising.

OK then. Maybe it's better if you stick to the insinuations of dishonesty after all.

[gejohnston]

142. I made no insinuation of dishonesty

I bluntly stated it. I also provided evidence.

Perhaps not, please explain it to me, since your boy ignored them.

[DanTex]

144. OK, it's getting late.

For your homework assignment, please re-read that last post of mine about the sensitivity to false positives versus false negatives. I know it seems perplexing, but I've got full confidence that if you put in some effort, you'll be able to understand it. And then, next time you discuss this topic, you can maybe come a little closer to making a coherent point. Wouldn't that be something!


Always a good time!

[gejohnston]

145. I have a better idea, how about I call up a

math teacher that I know? I am quite sure she knows what she is talking about. I mean, no offense, but you might be a math PhD, or you may not have a clue. Still waters really do run deep. Coherent? OK, I promise to do my Ernie Hemingway imitation again. I will give you credit for this, at least you managed not to resort to condescending personal attacks against me like before.

[ileus]

29. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max......grabbers are funny.

[rrneck]

71. A fine example of what I was talking about.

You trot out a flaccid appeal to authority that supports your bias and expect me to accept that as proof of anything that matters to anyone. Well, at least you got to mention the NRA.

The negative societal impact of firearms by law abiding people, which no one denies, has to be seen in relation to the same deliterious effect of firearms in the hands of the criminally minded. The benefits of firearms ownership, which derive from the same bellicose threat of violence, also have to be considered.

So, while it's true that the chances of being shot in a home where there are no guns present are very small (wow, how'd they figure that out), the homeowner has to actually make a risk assessment regarding the danger of a negligent discharge against the danger of defenselessness.

As happens with a great many studies and their attendant appeals to authority, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to tell us something we already know; Yes, guns are dangerous. Always. Every time someone touches one. The question that you studiously avoid is dangerous to whom? While guns are used to intimidate a lot of innocent people, they are equally useful to resolve a disparity of force even when the aggressor is unarmed.

On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. ikelihood or severity of injury during an likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in.

Really? Brutality and intimidation only works for the bad guys? Why don't you conduct some research of your own. Go to a biker bar and pick out the biggest, baddest sumbitch there. Slap him on the ear and tell him he's a pussy whipped mutherfucker. Let us know if you think you'd like him to think you'd be able shoot him before you get out of there.

The fact is millions of people have made a risk assessment and have decided they need a gun. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you find a solution to replace the one found by those very real people. And assume responsibility when your solution fails. When someone is brutalized or lives under the threat of same they won't give a flying fuck what some arrogant mandarin says about some esoteric survey study. And they sure as hell won't vote for him.

What firearm free self defense solution do you offer to replace the one found by millions of law abiding citizens for the last few hundred years? Why don't you do your own research and get back to us.

[DanTex]

89. It's called peer-reviewed research.

But keep calling science as an "appeal to authority", you'll find a lot of comfort among creationists and global warming deniers.

What we have here is the usual situation: some gun advocate on the internet claims guns provide a valuable defensive benefit for millions, while study after study shows this is not the case, and that the detrimental effects of widespread gun availability far outweigh whatever deterrent or defensive benefit that may exist. I'd like to think liberals are generally intellectual enough to realize that personal beliefs are not substitute for systematic data analysis and scientific studies. Usually it's right-wing blowhards who make the dismissive comments about global warming every time it snows, or say things like "why don't you conduct some research of your own: go to a zoo and see how many monkeys turn into humans".

As for me, I'll stick to the scientific evidence rather than the incoherent blather of internet gun zealots.

[rrneck]

91. You got that solution yet or what?

Or should someone in the process of getting raped or murdered cite a research study to stop the attack?

If you thought those studies weren't authoritative you wouldn't be flogging them with such missionary zeal. Put them to use and produce a solution or admit you're just another authoritarian junior bloviator.

[DanTex]

94. You got any evidence yet?

I don't see any.

On the other hand, I see you have repeated "authoritarian" accusation. Thanks! I collect those. Most of the times it's right-wing nutjobs who say things like "taxation is slavery" or "Obamacare leads to death panels" or "gun control is authoritarian". But it looks like even some Democrats will resort to the same mindless name-calling when they are are completely starved of facts.

Anyway, I understand that you have fantasies about shooting down bad guys, but I don't think those should be the basis for public policy. In my opinion, it would be much better to enact some gun restrictions so that we no longer have a homicide rate several times higher than the rest of the industrialized world. I know preventing murders doesn't have the tough-guy appeal of shooting it out, but I tend to go with the science rather than the bravado.

[rrneck]

96. I wonder

how "some gun restrictions" would fare under peer review.

:rofl:

[DanTex]

97. Whatever you do, just make sure you don't cite any evidence. Keep your evidence total at zero.

[rrneck]

98. Well

I sure can't cite evidence of a solution from you.

[DanTex]

100. You're doing great!

[rrneck]

103. Yes. I am.

Because you have yet to offer more than bigoted sophistry.

In the unlikely event you are able to actually apply the information from the sources you cite to the lives of real people everything you say is simply moot.

So how about that solution.

[DanTex]

107. Bigoted! Awesome!

I'm starting to give up on any actual evidence coming from you. Actually it's not your fault, there just isn't much science supporting your position.

But at least we're getting some creative name-calling!

On second thought -- "authoritarian", "bigoted" -- not even that creative. Keep trying...

As for a solution, I'll repeat: the gun laws of just about every other industrialized nation have clearly been much more effective than our own, as evidenced by their far lower homicide and gun violence rates. Whether, say, Canada's laws would work better or worse here than, say, the UK's laws, that's another discussion. I don't think we need an outright national handgun ban. I do think we need a licensing/registration system.

I guess you're trying to argue that if I don't have a detailed plan for exactly what gun legislation we should pass, that makes all the scientific evidence moot. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

[X_Digger]

109. Ooh, what a pretty post hoc ergo propter hoc..

I'll repeat: the gun laws of just about every other industrialized nation have clearly been much more effective than our own, as evidenced by their far lower homicide and gun violence rates.

What was the UK's murder rate before they had gun control? What was the rate after?

Here, I'll give you some starting points..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_to_1999

[DanTex]

114. Wow, latin! Such exquisite pseudointellectualism!

Y'all are too much. If only some of that energy were devoted to actually finding a shred of scientific evidence backing your point of view.

Imagine!

[X_Digger]

115. You claimed causation -- "have clearly been much more effective"

Feel free to take those links above and show me.

What you'd need is a graph something like this..



I mean, if there's causation, you should be able to demonstrate it, right?

[DanTex]

118. Nice graph!

When I say "have been more effective", I mean that there is far less homicide and gun violence. You can deny all you want, but these are facts. In the same way that the rest of the industrialized world has universal healthcare, and as a result they have equal or better care than the US and much lower cost. And, yes, I do think there is a causal link between universal coverage and improved healthcare delivery.

Actually in the UK, gun ownership rates were already low even before the handgun ban, so you wouldn't expect a dramatic result. Also, there are other demographic forces at work, so if you want to do a time series analysis like that, it's not as simple as you would like it to be.

However, if you are looking for a time series type study, one that comes to mind is this one, which examines changes in gun control laws in Hawaii. As the authors point out, Hawaii is a useful state to study because unlike the lower 48, it is much harder to circumvent state law by trafficking weapons in from other states with laxer laws (for obvious reasons). And they do find a change after the imposition of stricter laws.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/UCLF-HawaiianExperience-2005

Of course this is just one study in a large body of scientific research, and the case for gun control is not based only on international comparisons, or on Hawaii, or any other single piece of evidence. It's the totality of evidence that makes the case.

[X_Digger]

124. You haven't provided any facts to back up your claim.. when you do, I'll address them.

You haven't provided any facts.

Actually in the UK, gun ownership rates were already low even before the handgun ban, so you wouldn't expect a dramatic result. Also, there are other demographic forces at work, so if you want to do a time series analysis like that, it's not as simple as you would like it to be.

Feel free to pick up those goal posts as many times as you like. We can try to compare other countries if you think the UK is too hard.

But actually, you inadvertently made part of my point for me. Gun ownership rates (as well as homicide rates, with or without guns) were low *before* their gun control measures. Compare 1880's NYC with London- NYCs murder rate was five times that of London, when neither country had substantive gun control.

However, if you are looking for a time series type study, one that comes to mind is this one, which examines changes in gun control laws in Hawaii. As the authors point out, Hawaii is a useful state to study because unlike the lower 48, it is much harder to circumvent state law by trafficking weapons in from other states with laxer laws (for obvious reasons). And they do find a change after the imposition of stricter laws.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/UCLF-HawaiianE...

I don't think you read that study very carefully..

quoting from page 74 (of the paper's notation, not the pdf..)

Yet, Hawaii's trend in gun violence diverges from what is observed in our West Coast and West Region even when we compare across decades, rather than just for the five years around the time of the 1981 Hawaii law, or when we exclude data from 1981 from the analytic sample.

Which calls into question the validity of the conclusion you'd like to make. Notice that Cook and Ludwig don't even go so far as you attempt.

[DanTex]

126. The 1880's huh. LOL.

Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the sky-high homicide rates of the indigenous Yanomamo people of the Amazon. (No kidding: I've actually had people bring this up as a serious argument...)

Anyway, what I'm interested in is the effect of gun availability in modern wealthy nations, you know, like the US right now. Because that's what's relevant to to current gun policy. And so I'll repeat. The homicide and gun violence rates in the UK are much lower than the US. The same holds for every other wealthy nation, where they have much more restrictive gun laws.

Also, let me help you out with the CL study, it appears you don't have much experience with academic research. This sentence you quote:

Yet, Hawaii's trend in gun violence diverges from what is observed in our West Coast and West Region even when we compare across decades, rather than just for the five years around the time of the 1981 Hawaii law, or when we exclude data from 1981 from the analytic sample.

indicates that the results are not due to anomalous events in the year 1981. They are pointing out that their results are robust to changes in the specification. It means you can look across decades, or just the five years around 1981, or you can exclude 1981, you still find an effect from the gun control law. This is exactly what they should do -- it is very common to point out that your results don't go away if you make small changes in the study parameters like this.

Also, when they say "Hawaii's trend in gun violence diverges from what is observed in our West Coast and West Region" that means that the gun violence got lower in Hawaii. The West Coast was used as a control region, where the laws didn't change. If Hawaii's trend did not diverge from the West Coast, that would mean no effect. But there was an effect. That's why if you read on, you find:

The general pattern of homicide changes observed in Hawaii during the 1980s relative to other states is consistent with what we would find if Hawaii's 1981 gun law had some effect.

Try paying closer attention next time.

[X_Digger]

128. Lol, go read page 74.. *snort*

I would quote it, but you have to transcribe it, it's an image not text.

indicates that the results are not due to anomalous events in the year 1981. They are pointing out that their results are robust to changes in the specification. It means you can look across decades, or just the five years around 1981, or you can exclude 1981, you still find an effect from the gun control law. This is exactly what they should do -- it is very common to point out that your results don't go away if you make small changes in the study parameters like this.

You actually made me laugh out loud.

Please, go read page 74. Hell, let me transcribe some more.

The unusually sharp and abrupt drop in gun homicides at the time of the 1981 law is peculiar. Yet, Hawaii's trend in gun violence diverges from what is observed in our West Coast and West Region even when we compare across decades, rather than just for the five years around the time of the 1981 Hawaii law, or when we exclude data from 1981 from the analytic sample.

Another, and perhaps more serious challenge to our findings is the possibility that crack cocaine hit the West Region and West Coast states but not Hawaii, a fact which might inflate homicide rates during the 1980's in the former compared to the latter.

Get that? "Another, and perhaps more serious challenge.." Even when they leave out 1981, or compare across decades, the correlation between Hawaii and the two control regions isn't as strong as they'd expect, if the control regions are to be valuable for studying the effect of the 1981 law.

They went to great lengths to try to find areas that correlated closely with HI before 1981, that didn't implement gun control. I assume you know this, and actually read the paper. "Another, and perhaps more serious challenge.." tells you (I didn't need to get it, I got it the first time around) that the previous passage was a challenge to the correlation.

The fact that you seem to misinterpret this makes me wonder how much else you're misunderstanding.

Anyway, what I'm interested in is the effect of gun availability in modern wealthy nations, you know, like the US right now. Because that's what's relevant to to current gun policy. And so I'll repeat. The homicide and gun violence rates in the UK are much lower than the US. The same holds for every other wealthy nation, where they have much more restrictive gun laws.

Here's a pat on the head. I'll take as read the correlation.

I brought up the 1880's because it is before there was any serious gun control in either nation. Consider that a starting point for our graph. Now, jump to 1920, 1938, 1964, 1997.. the years when various gun control measures in the UK were implemented.

If you're going to claim causation, you have to demonstrate it. You can't just show correlation and whinge.

[DanTex]

130. Note to self. Stop expecting gun zealots on the internet to be able to understand science papers...

Get that? Even when they leave out 1981, or compare across decades, the correlation between Hawaii and the two control regions aren't as strong as they'd expect, if the control region is to be valuable for studying the effect of the 1981 law.

Honestly do you have clue at all what you're talking about? Or what the word "correlation" means? Did you even attempt to read the study or just try and search for a sentence you could try to take out of context? LOL. Seriously, I'm actually cracking up right now. LOL.


Hawaii's data matched up well with the control states until 1981, and then the trend diverged. You find the same result even if you change the time horizon, or if you throw out the year 1981. None of these tweaks change the result of the study. For example:

The changes in homicide rates in Hawaii during the 1980s, relative to other states that had similar homicide rates in the 1970s, coincides with Hawaii's implementation (in 1981) of a stricter set of regulations governing firearm permits and sales.

Could it possibly be any clearer than that? I don't see how. Honestly, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to you. You really don't get it? Or are you intentionally being obtuse?

[X_Digger]

132. You mean their conclusion doesn't match what they say in the body? *gasp*

Shocked, shocked, I tell ya.

I read it from top to bottom, which is why I obviously picked up on the 'Another, and perhaps more serious challenge' language that you seemed to miss.

Tell me, what is the previous 'challenge' to which they refer? Hrmm?

Waiting with bated breath.

eta: I suspect that if they'd stuck with the 'west' region, their case would be stronger. Check the graph on p. 77 v the one on p. 76. Notice the closer correlation pre-1981 on the graph at the bottom of p. 76, as compared to the wide rate differences pre-1981 on the one at the top of 1977.

[DanTex]

135. You're a champ! A real scientific scholar you are!

:rofl:

On edit: OK, on the off chance that you're honestly just totally confused and not being intentionally obtuse:

The "other challenge" is the fact that the data from 1981 seems "peculiar", so it's possible that the results of the paper are due to just one anomalous event. But, as they point out, removing 1981 or extending the time period doesn't change the results, so it's actually not just one peculiar year -- the results are robust.

Anyway, believe what you will. The paper's there for anyone to read.

[rrneck]

123. Nope.

I'm arguing that you are more interested in defending your ideology than the people who would be affected by it.

How many people reading this right now have been victims of violence or know someone who has? Like I said, all guns are dangerous and we would all be better off if we didn't need them. Unfortunately, many people do. And a dismissive attitude toward their concerns in favor of some simplistic ideology is a callous and self centered way to treat people.

Do you have a "plan"? Some "system" based on "statistical research"? Well, I hope it works because lives depend on it. And not just the lives favored by your pet theory.

So I'll ask you again. Do you have a firearm free self defense solution that works better than a gun? Believe it or not I hope you do because I'm tired of asking people and getting bullshit in return.

[DanTex]

127. And I'm asking you for some evidence showing how useful a gun is for self-defense.

You seem so convinced it's an essential self-defense tool, you'd think you might be able to provide some evidence for this claim. But nothing. At all. Zero.

My solution, I'll repeat, is to reduce the overall rates of homicide and gun violence by reducing gun availability. You know, like the rest of the industrialized world has done.

I'm arguing that you are more interested in defending your ideology than the people who would be affected by it.

Please. 30,000 people die a year from gun violence. A far higher rate than any other wealthy nation. Sorry, but you're the one placing your gun-obsessed ideological bias ahead of the lives of innocent victims. The fact that there's no evidence supporting your point of view doesn't seem to bother you one bit.

As long as you get your keep your easy access to guns, you're satisfied.

[rrneck]

131. You can run but you can't hide.

How would a 110 pound woman defend herself against a 250 pound man?

Neither will fit in the obtuse frame you're trying to construct.

[iverglas]

151. I've been trying and trying

You seem so convinced it's an essential self-defense tool, you'd think you might be able to provide some evidence for this claim. But nothing. At all. Zero.

... to get some of that evidence stuff from them, but just no luck.

I'd like to see evidence that any significant number of actual homicides (as compared to the brazillions of imaginary homicides that Kleck's respondents claimed to have averted) would -- or heck, even might -- have been prevented if the victim or someone in the vicinity had had a firearm at hand.

With 12,000 or so firearms homicides in the US a year, you'd think somebody could come up with a couple of hundred!

[gejohnston]

137. I would like to think so too

I'd like to think liberals are generally intellectual enough to realize that personal beliefs are not substitute for systematic data analysis and scientific studies. Usually it's right-wing blowhards who make the dismissive comments about global warming every time it snows, or say things like "why don't you conduct some research of your own: go to a zoo and see how many monkeys turn into humans".

I'd like to think so too, we are not perfect. Since Kleck is also a fellow Democrat, liberal etc. Yet you dismiss him as a right wing crank.

[DanTex]

138. Nope

I'd like to think so too, we are not perfect. Since Kleck is also a fellow Democrat, liberal etc. Yet you dismiss him as a right wing crank.

Wrong. I think John Lott is a right-wing crank (which he is). My objections to Kleck are just that his research is flawed and doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[gejohnston]

143. Better than your boy Hemenway's

Because his is certainly flawed.

[iverglas]

106. enjoying your posts

Here's another one for you.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/10/02/nb-rural-abuse.html

Guns influence abused women's decisions to seek help: study
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | 4:23 PM AT
CBC News

A new study of abused women in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island shows that having firearms in the home made them more fearful and less likely to seek help.

The study was conducted for the Canadian Firearms Centre by Fredericton researchers Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty. It surveyed 283 women living in transition and 108 crisis workers, police officers and child protection workers to gain a better understanding of family violence in a rural context.

The results show:

25 per cent of the abused women knew firearms were in the house.
40 per cent of those firearms were not licensed.
11 per cent of the firearms were kept loaded.
66 per cent of the women said firearms made them fear for their safety.
70 per cent said the firearms' presence affected their decision to seek help.
64 per cent thought firearms would be used to harm a pet or farm animal.

The study sheds light on an area rarely researched in Canada, said Hornosty, and demonstrated the ways firearms can be used as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family situation.

[DanTex]

121. Thanks. And thanks.

The study sheds light on an area rarely researched in Canada, said Hornosty, and demonstrated the ways firearms can be used as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family situation.

Very true: domestic violence and intimidation is an area where the statistics on gunshot injuries and fatalities fail to capture the true damage.

[mikeb302000]

78. I'm afraid you're the one who needs to study

but you're not interested in that, You're biased in favor of guns and any attempt to rationalize is lost on you.

About the numbers of defensive uses, consider this. Main stream media would not report them because if no shots are fired there's not much of a story. But, on the pro-gun blogs, of which there are hundreds, you'd certainly hear these reports. Where are they? I read them every day, and they're as rare as hens' teeth.

[rrneck]

81. No link yet huh?

Figures.

Like I said and you ignored it's a circuitous problem and any fair consideration must include defensive gun use. Anything less reveals your position as a self serving ideology.

Never mind. How about this, if you don't like guns why don't you produce a firearm free self defense solution that works better than a gun. Then we can all stop arguing about it. Can you do that?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Unreced for blog flogging, your specious disclaimer notwithstanding

Nothing personal, many people unrec any flogger.

[Cirque du So-What]

26. At least the author of the OP has the wherewithal to *write* a blog

Is this automatic unreccing meant as a slam against individual expression? Most people wouldn't automatically unrec *your* blog, Professor, if you were inclined to share it with us.

[X_Digger]

30. Check Merriam-Webster..

http://merriamwebstercollegiate.com/dictionary/notwithstanding

Have any other nits to pick?


eta: Lol, I see you edited your reply. You still have some egg on your chin.

For me, at least, it's the duplication more than the blogspam. If every single post weren't a re-hash of a topic *still on the first page*, I wouldn't complain as much.

There actually is a rule against such behavior..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Duplicate Topics and Spamming

Do not post duplicate topics that have already been posted.

[Cirque du So-What]

34. Thanks for mucking about with posts that I've edited within the alloted time

Guess you're the designated watchdog of the gungeon today, eh? Since this matters sofa king much to you, allow me to point out that the Merriam-Webster entry you cite uses only the spelling 'notwithstanding.' The only usage of 'not withstanding' on the entire page is in a comment from a reader - hardly worth citing.

BTW, if you want to get into it regarding style, spelling, punctuation - whatever the fuck ever - just say the word. I'm ready whenever you are. Don't be a chicken! Buc buc buc buc-CAW! I'll be waiting.

P.S. - who died & appointed you ad hoc moderator for the Gun Forum? If there was a vote, I must have missed it! You want to pick nits regarding duplicate topics, yet turn a blind eye to the flagrant violations that occur every mother-scratchin' day in this forum? If you got a beef, why not take it up with the mods of this forum instead of 'playing' at it? In fact, let's open that can o'worms right now! If a duplicate topic is sufficient to drive some here to apoplexy, then surely it's time to open a discussion on other things that I'm sure are violations of DU rules, amirite?

[X_Digger]

41. Have some salve for that bruised ego.

Guess you're the designated watchdog of the gungeon today, eh? Since this matters sofa king much to you, allow me to point out that the Merriam-Webster entry you cite uses only the spelling 'notwithstanding.' The only usage of 'not withstanding' on the entire page is in a comment from a reader - hardly worth citing.

Yes, you wondered if the poster had forgotten to hit the space bar, when in fact his spelling was the correct one. Trying to revise history?

BTW, if you want to get into it regarding style, spelling, punctuation - whatever the fuck ever - just say the word. I'm ready whenever you are. Don't be a chicken! Buc buc buc buc-CAW! I'll be waiting.

No, I'm not the writing style police- I don't go around correcting peoples mistakes for them. But the delicious irony of catching someone attempting to do it, when they're actually the one who is wrong- is too sweet to pass up.

P.S. - who died & appointed you ad hoc moderator for the Gun Forum? If there was a vote, I must have missed it! You want to pick nits regarding duplicate topics, yet turn a blind eye to the flagrant violations that occur every mother-scratchin' day in this forum? If you got a beef, why not take it up with the mods of this forum instead of 'playing' at it? In fact, let's open that can o'worms right now! If a duplicate topic is sufficient to drive some here to apoplexy, then surely it's time to open a discussion on other things that I'm sure are violations of DU rules, amirite?

Did I lock the topic? No.. did I delete a post? No.. Then what makes you think I'm pretending to be an ad hoc moderator? Pointing out to a poster who has asked, "Is it against the DU rules to post a topic that's already been posted somewhere else?" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=439702&mesg_id=440322) that yes, such a rule exists- isn't being an 'ad hoc moderator'.

If you see a transgression of the rules, I suggest you hit 'alert'-- the moderators don't scrutinize every post for every transgression. They rely on us to catch them. If you think the moderators aren't responding fairly to your alerts, you can take it up with the administration in the ATA forum.

Feel free to start a thread about violations that you think have not been sufficiently addressed. I would suggest you word it carefully, though, as complaining about moderation is another criteria subject to moderation.

[Cirque du So-What]

53. 'Notwithstanding' is the correct spelling. It's right there on the webpage you linked

There's no challenge, BTW. It's obvious you take 10,000 words to say what could be said with 100.

[X_Digger]

55. I'm not the one who challenged 'notwithstanding'. :) n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

56. Yeah, but you sure thought you had the goods on me!

Couldn't WAIT to post a link to a webpage that...well, never mind that it proved MY point instead of YOURS, but you posted something, by gawd!

BTW...do you sit here 24/7? I've actually been out of doors for a few hours, yet I come online, respond to your post, and YOU reply to that post in mere moments. Creepy. I feel like a fucking vulture is watching from a nearby tree.

[X_Digger]

62. The only use of 'not withstanding' on that page..

.. was by a comment left via facebook. LOL!

You did realize that, right?

And no, I'm not here 24/7.. I just happened to be here catching up, in time to see your faux pas.

[ileus]

63. I was for not withstanding before I was against it? LOL

or is that I was for "notwithstanding" after I was for "not withstanding"...........this sub thread is confusing.

So which is it................ not withstanding OR notwithstanding. :)

[X_Digger]

64. The correct usage is 'notwithstanding' -- as in post #17.

Cirque chided the professor about 'forgetting to hit the space bar' or some such, then he changed his response to be something else entirely.

[ileus]

74. I canoe it!

[Cirque du So-What]

67. It's 'notwithstanding'

I tried to amend my post by saying something more on-topic, yet my personal stalker saw fit to latch onto my post as it was originally and to run it into the fucking ground - compounding his error by insisting that I believe 'not withstanding' is the correct way to spell it, which couldn't be farther from the truth. If you want HIS take on the situation, I suggest you ask HIM; it's his story - not mine!

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

66. If you wish to have a private conversation with someone..

I suggest you click the little icon beside a person's name.

Otherwise? Don't post if you don't want someone to reply.

:shrug:

[Cirque du So-What]

69. I don't want a fucking private conversation with ANYone

much less you! I believe everything related to 'notwithstanding' and its lesser cousin 'not withstanding' has been beaten to death.

Now it's time to play 'last word,' where I stop posting in this increasingly ridiculous subthread and you post the last word & claim victory, m'kay?

[ileus]

35. not withstanding the notwithstanding post...or is that withstandingnot? LOL correction...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

37. xoxox

[ileus]

38. or dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/notwithstanding

[ileus]

31. automatic unreccs are for drivebys...

[Union Scribe]

40. DU has a blogging feature. OP wants traffic, not commentary.

In another thread they literally posted "who asked you?" to posters...after posting an OP.

[Hangingon]

68. Is this blog also in Italian?

[mikeb302000]

79. Isn't the fact that there are 70 + comments

an indication that although this topic may have been posted already, over here we have a different take on it?

[Union Scribe]

39. Don't get all pissy because people know you're blog-spamming. nt

[BryanDavis]

70. DanTex, etc,

I've read a lot of discussion in this thread about the negative effects of gun use on the human mind. I don't doubt that watching someone get shot is a traumatizing event, but did you ever stop to consider the positive effects of gun use on the human mind?

I, for one, feel safer when I have a gun nearby. I'd feel safer too if I knew that other law-abiding citizens had guns too. And when I read about a law-abiding citizen shooting an aggressor instead of becoming a victim, honestly, it warms my heart.

Now what is the traumatic effect of taking away all that safety?

[mikeb302000]

83. "all that safety"

as you call it, DanTex, does not make up for all the misery. Not only is there a lot of gunmisuse being done by you so-called lawful gunowners, but it's through you that the criminals are getting their guns. Every gun in the criminal world, just about, was manufactured and delivered to an FFL guy and after that somehow slipped over into the dark side. It's called gun flow, and you (lawful gun owners) are responsible for it.

Now, why should we have to put up with all that just so you can feel secure?

[beevul]

85. All that hyperbole.

"It's called gun flow, and you (lawful gun owners) are responsible for it."


Yeah, criminals certainly aren't, right? :eyes:

"Now, why should we have to put up with all that just so you can feel secure?"


Because its until you can amend the U.S. bill of rights - which you yourself appear to have no business being involved in any efforts to do - or stack the court with judges that can't or wont read the second amendment as what it plainly says and plainly is, getting at criminals by going through the law abiding is a dog that wont hunt.

Thats why.

[DanTex]

95. As they say, the bill of rights is not a suicide pact.

And it also doesn't lock us into a gun policy which ensures that our homicide rate remains several times higher than other wealthy countries.

Of course, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, those guys would disagree with me. But I'm looking forward to the day when such right-wing fanatics no longer dominate the Supreme Court. You, on the other hand, are probably terrified of the the thought of a few more liberal judges.

The thing is, if Obama wins in 2012, we might just get one. And that might spell the end for your beloved right-wing SCOTUS majority...

The horror!

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. Are you going to replace the *rest* of the Supreme Court while you're at it?

I'd point out that all of the justices agreed in Heller that the Second Amendment confirmed (not conferred)

an individual right to keep and bear arms.

[mikeb302000]

155. Yeah sure. This is one of the most repeated

wacky gun loon theories going. The fact is the Court was divided 5 to 4. And Scalia himself writing the decision said "reasonable restrictions" are acceptable. What that means is, for you guys who are so biased you can't think straight, all the "non infringement" talk is worthless.

[beevul]

156. You obviously did not read the dissent.

That or you didn't understand what you read.

[X_Digger]

102. Our *non* gun homicide rate is higher than many countries' total rate..

So how is it that you seem to have a hard-on for gun control, rather than criminal control?

(See http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html )

[DanTex]

110. Higher than some, lower than others.

But not completely out of line, like the overall homicide rate. As that chart of yours shows, it's the enormous number of gun homicides that makes our overall homicide rate so much higher than other wealthy nations.

In general, our overall crime rates are not all that different from other demographically similar nations. It's just that we have far more lethal gun violence.

[X_Digger]

111. Didn't do the math, did you?

Here, let me save you some time..

What's our non-gun homicide rate? 13,696 - 9,146 = 4,490. Population? 305,000,000. Rate? 1.47 per 100,000.

Find 1.47 in this list..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That puts us above the *total* rate of..

Luxembourg
Ireland
France
Australia
UK
Poland
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Denmark
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
Germany
Japan
Switzerland
Norway
Austria
Iceland

Now.. countries above us, after removing gun homicides?

Croatia
Chile
Slovakia
Canada
Serbia
New Zealand
Romania
Israel
Finland

So if you magically removed all guns, and stipulated zero method substitution.. we'd still be above most 'demographically similar' nations.

[LAGC]

153. LOL, that sure shut him up real quick.

Isn't it funny how some folks don't want to examine the true CAUSES of crime, just go after certain particular tools that happen to be used as weapons?

Our homicide rate is inexcusable, especially in inner-cities, but its never going to get better if we don't change our culture, deal with the gang problem, and adopt a more liberal policy on (currently) illegal drugs which only fuels the crime problem.

[iverglas]

154. demographically similar

I think demographically and socioeconomically similar would be the better basis of comparison, but in any event.

The countries most demographically similar to the US are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All four are former British colonies, all four are countries of immigration, all four have an indigenous population, etc. There are major distinguishing features between the US and the other three, but they are still the closest. Followed by the UK. The US really isn't comparable, demographically or otherwise, to Serbia, I think. And most other western European countries have much lower GINI indexes than the US, lower than the others I've named as well, and much more extensive social safety nets, so comparability declines there too.

Australia and the UK have total homicide rates lower than the non-firearm homicide rate in the US.

Canada and New Zealand have higher rates.

What was the original statement? Higher than some, lower than others?

Which is pretty much what your post showed anyhow.

[beevul]

116. Did someone say it was?

"And it also doesn't lock us into a gun policy which ensures that our homicide rate remains several times higher than other wealthy countries."

Did someone say it did?

You and others like you, who believe as you do, are free to lobby government to go after criminals.

The resounding message both from the courts , and from non-criminal gun owners, is "leave gun rights alone".

So your lobbying efforts, law enforcement, etc etc, are free to try to lower the gun homicide rate outside those constraints to your hearts content.

Somehow though, I doubt thats what you have in mind.

"You, on the other hand, are probably terrified of the the thought of a few more liberal judges."

Nice personal attack. I don't mind them though. They remind me that I'm on the winning side of this debate, and that YOU aren't.

That being said, I really don't care what about this judge or that judge, I care about decisions.

And my like or dislike for any given decision has nothing to do with what judges were in the majority, or those that were in the dissent.

Yours, not so much perhaps.


"And that might spell the end for your beloved right-wing SCOTUS majority"

Its not nice to ascribe to someone beliefs or feelings which they give no evidence of holding.

In case you need it spelled out for you, YOU just did that.

But again, I don't mind, another reminder of what side of the issue were both on, and which of us is on the winning side, and which of us isn't.

Whos bitter NOW, eh?