FA discovered packing

[dmccormack]

I have quoted the most complete and comprehensive data set available to anyone on firearm deaths in the US. If that is insufficient, then there is no data set that will convince the gun advocates in this thread. In other words, your minds are made up despite the facts. Or, as another far more eloquent chap has said:

-----You can't handle the truth clip here ---

IIRC, the chap you use to prove your point was lying, covered up data, and skewed the evidence to suit his preference.

 

[ScottM]

No kidding. Criminals look for an easy mark.

"That guy has guns..." has likely crossed the mind of more than one potential felon, don'tchya think?

And that is why the data also shows that more guns equals less crime. But the same data also shows more guns = more gun deaths. If you dismiss one you HAVE to dismiss the other or if you accept on you have to accept both.

 

[gprellwitz]

Seems to me like the best protection of your property is not a gun, but a big, prominent NRA* poster on the lawn!



* by which I mean National Rifle Association, not National Restaurant Association, unless the thieves are afraid that you're a chef with a cleaver!

 

[Trapper John]

Seems to me like the best protection of your property is not a gun, but a big, prominent NRA* poster on the lawn!



* by which I mean National Rifle Association, not National Restaurant Association, unless the thieves are afraid that you're a chef with a cleaver!

I've seen a lot of "Insured by Smith & Wesson" signs and bumper stickers over the years, but I don't know if they really work. I tend to see them affixed to vehicles and residences that wouldn't be very attractive if I were a thief, either...

IMO, a good dog is a better deterrent.

 

[gprellwitz]

I've seen a lot of "Insured by Smith & Wesson" signs and bumper stickers over the years, but I don't know if they really work. I tend to see them affixed to vehicles and residences that wouldn't be very attractive if I were a thief, either...

IMO, a good dog is a better deterrent.

Maybe a mean mother in law?


(Luckily(?), that's not something I have. Ever been partying with your MIL in Key West at 2AM while your spouse is back at the hotel! )

 

[weilke]

The CDC collects data. Data is neither conservative nor liberal, not Republican or Democrat. It never lies. Ever.

You are right, the data never lies, the lying starts the moment people analyze it.

Only an idiot or someone willfully blinded to the truth would claim random correlation.

Not random, but possibly correlated to a different factor, e.g. engaging in the activity of 'hunting'.

But I think it stinks that gun advocates loudly smear scientists who competently do their jobs of impassionately collecting data and making very logical conclusions. Research isn't automatically bad or biased just because you don't like the conclusions.

Having worked in science for a while I find the idea of researchers 'impassionately collecting data' to be rather quaint.

 

[ScottM]

Not random, but possibly correlated to a different factor, e.g. engaging in the activity of 'hunting'.

It does not matter what the activity was that resulted in the death, one is still dead. Indeed since we see more guns reducing crime but the number of gun deaths increasing the only conclusion is that deaths are the results of stupid things like accidents.

The bottom line is if you think guns make you safer they do not. They reduce crime but at a cost of an increase of death due to other non-crime firearm shootings.

 

[weilke]

I've seen a lot of "Insured by Smith & Wesson" signs and bumper stickers over the years, but I don't know if they really work. I tend to see them affixed to vehicles and residences that wouldn't be very attractive if I were a thief, either...

Guns are almost as good as cash for a burglar. If the burglar is a pro, all the sign tells him that he better come back when the homeowners are out.

 

[ScottM]

Guns are almost as good as cash for a burglar. If the burglar is a pro, all the sign tells him that he better come back when the homeowners are out.

When people are away from their home is when buglers prefer to strike. Hopefully people who such a sign are also storing their weapons in a secure gun safe to prevent that type of theft.

 

[weilke]

It does not matter what the activity was that resulted in the death, one is still dead.

It certainly matters. Few risks with guns are unavoidable (spontaneous chamber-failures, aka 'kabooms'), most are 100% controllable by the owner (e.g. not leaving loaded guns lying around for your grandkids to find). Very few 'accidents', lots of stupidity.

Indeed since we see more guns reducing crime

I have yet to see proof of that.

The bottom line is if you think guns make you safer they do not.

I never thought that.

Having your cholesterol checked and losing 20 lbs will contribute more to your longevity than any concern of crime and personal security.

 

[Trapper John]

Maybe a mean mother in law?

Deployed as a human shield?

 

[Trapper John]

Not random, but possibly correlated to a different factor, e.g. engaging in the activity of 'hunting'.

Around here we get a case of a dog shooting a hunter once a year or so...not sure how much useful info the researchers get by interviewing the dog, though.

 

[weilke]

When people are away from their home is when buglers prefer to strike. Hopefully people who such a sign are also storing their weapons in a secure gun safe to prevent that type of theft.

Gun-owners are almost as cheap as pilots . I wouldn't count on that.

 

[weilke]

Around here we get a case of a dog shooting a hunter once a year or so...not sure how much useful info the researchers get by interviewing the dog, though.

I used to work in a very active deer hunting area. Every year we had at least two fatalities, funny enough none of them related to gunshot injuries. Most of it revolved around 'old guy fell of deer-stand' or 'old guy gets hit by deer-stand falling off tree' or 'old guy gets heart attack while putting up deer-stand 1 week before deer-opener'

 

[Trapper John]

When people are away from their home is when buglers prefer to strike.

Criminals aren't universally stupid - burglary is easier and carries less severe criminal penalties than robbery. All the more reason to have a good dog as a deterrent.

Hopefully people who such a sign are also storing their weapons in a secure gun safe to prevent that type of theft.

I wouldn't count on that.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I used to work in a very active deer hunting area. Every year we had at least two fatalities, funny enough none of them related to gunshot injuries. Most of it revolved around 'old guy fell of deer-stand' or 'old guy gets hit by deer-stand falling off tree' or 'old guy gets heart attack while putting up deer-stand 1 week before deer-opener'

One I remember very distinctly from when I was in either middle or high school was a guy getting into his pickup after duck hunting (it may not have happened then, but it's when I heard about it). It was a pickup with a bench seat.

He put his gun in the truck, laid across the seat, pointed toward him. He caught the trigger on one of the seatbelt mechanisms (turns out I don't know what the receptacles are called). Boom, killed the guy, apparently it was a grisly scene.

But, yeah, there aren't too many gun deaths from hunting. Now...other kinds of accidents happen all the time - tree stands in particular.

 

[weilke]

He put his gun in the truck, laid across the seat, pointed toward him. He caught the trigger on one of the seatbelt mechanisms (turns out I don't know what the receptacles are called). Boom, killed the guy, apparently it was a grisly scene.

Ducks = shotgun = messy :wink2:

We actually had one nice juicy one a couple of years back. Guy doesn't unload rifle to climb down from tree-stand and lets it dangle on a sling below him. Shoots himself through the leg. Falls and catches foot on the ladder and ends up hanging upside down below the deer-stand. As he was alone (most dumb deer hunting accidents happen alone, gawd forbid you would have to share your 'deer-spot' with someone else), it took about two hours for someone to find him. Interestingly enough, he pulled through.

 

[NC Pilot]

And that is why the data also shows that more guns equals less crime. But the same data also shows more guns = more gun deaths. If you dismiss one you HAVE to dismiss the other or if you accept on you have to accept both.

Scott,

Once again you are ONLY looking at the number of deaths. To you one death is equal to any other. This is not true.

My daughter being killed by a murderer is very different than her pulling a gun and killing a murderer.

One is a negative death, the other positive.

So, give me the numbers of negative and positive deaths in your statistics and I will believe you have no bias about guns causing deaths.

 

[ScottM]

Scott,

Once again you are ONLY looking at the number of deaths. To you one death is equal to any other. This is not true.

My daughter being killed by a murderer is very different than her pulling a gun and killing a murderer.

One is a negative death, the other positive.

So, give me the numbers of negative and positive deaths in your statistics and I will believe you have no bias about guns causing deaths.

Fact there are more guns deaths in CO than in Illinois. Fact there is more crime and murder in IL than CO. So using your logic there must be far more 'negative' deaths in CO due to there being less criminals to shoot. Therefore guns have caused a far larger amount amount of damage than the did in anything positive. You can keep denying all you want. You will probably call me a liar again because you cannot handle the reality of situation. So keep standing by your erroneous and understanding of reality. I just hope that one of your loved ones is not one of the accidental deaths due to all the extra guns-blankies that they are exposed to by people who really do not understand the issue.

Mike says it well.

There are two sides to this coin. First, what Scott and I have been saying is quite true. Your odds of suffering gunfire increase dramatically (over three orders of magnitude) with gun ownership. If you want to deny this, you are simply denying reality.

However, out of the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in America (at least one for every man woman and child) roughly thirty thousand wind up killing people (yeah, yeah, yeah, people kill people, guns just plant flowers or some such). Thus the odds are about in ten thousand that your gun will be involved in a fatal shooting. Not bad odds.

Flying an aircraft increases your chances of dying in an aircraft accident, and I'll bet the odds aren't anywhere near so favorable. So enjoy your guns. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't partake, I'm not particularly afraid of my neighbors.

 

[steingar]

You are right, the data never lies, the lying starts the moment people analyze it.

How is it lying if the analysis is supported by the relevant facts? Obviously, you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Not random, but possibly correlated to a different factor, e.g. engaging in the activity of 'hunting'.

Then firearm deaths would correlate with bow hunting, which they do not.

Having worked in science for a while I find the idea of researchers 'impassionately collecting data' to be rather quaint.

I'd like to know in which branch of science you were involved, where and in what capacity, to be able to denigrate a hardworking ill-paid and dedicated group so casually. I guess anyone who makes a conclusion you don't like is biased and lying.

 

[Everskyward]

Fact there are more guns deaths in CO than in Illinois.

Who the heck cares? I would much rather live in CO than IL any day.

 

[NC Pilot]

Fact there are more guns deaths in CO than in Illinois.

OK, the raw data supports this.

Fact there is more crime and murder in IL than CO. So using your logic there must be far more 'negative' deaths in CO due to there being less criminals to shoot.

How much of the crime in IL is gun related? How much is violent crime? How much is robbery? How much is drug arrests? Are all murders from gun shots?

You don't have this information and can't answer my questions, so a definative conclusion cannot be reached.

Therefore guns have caused a far larger amount amount of damage than the did in anything positive.

Illogical conclusion.

You can keep denying all you want.

I am not denying anything, I AM asking you to dig into the data you keep going back to support your conclusions.

You will probably call me a liar again because you cannot handle the reality of situation.

Scott, I have not called you a liar and this is the third time you have accused me of doing so. I am only asking you to provide complete and accurate data to back up your conclusions.

Your anti gun bias is showing again.

So keep standing by your erroneous and understanding of reality.

This sentence doesn't make sense, but I think you are saying I don't have a good grasp on reality. Look, I have not insulted you or called you a liar. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I have constantly challenged your assertions and you have not answered any of my challenges. Nowhere have I said that owning guns is not dangerous. It has an element of danger, but like flying planes it is a danger that can be addressed.

I just hope that one of your loved ones is not one of the accidental deaths due to all the extra guns-blankies that they are exposed to by people who really do not understand the issue.

and I hope that none of your loved ones are killed by a criminal when having a gun could have made the difference in keeping them alive.

 

[NC Pilot]

Who the heck cares? I would much rather live in CO than IL any day.

There are very few places in the US that are worse than Il (and Chicago in particular) IMHO.

Imagine not having ketchup on your hotdog. What manner of hell is this?

 

[ScottM]

Your anti gun bias is showing again.

T

I am not anti gun and your characterization of such even though I have told you several times that you are wrong is boorish and insulting. You consistently accuse me of making conclusions upon "flawed" data. That is just a fancy way of calling someone a liar. So forgive me if I call it what it is. Unlike you I am not living in denial.

Data has been presented that supports what I have been saying. You have not presented any data whatsoever to supported your idea. If you want to have an adult covnersation start serving up something other than delusional ideas that guns are making the world safe for everyone. I implore you to find data that shows anything like that whatsoever. I am confident you won't find legitimate complete data that shows any such thing.

 

[Trapper John]

Imagine not having ketchup on your hotdog.

Gaak. The only thing worse than ketchup on a hot dog is coleslaw.

 

[ScottM]

Gaak. The only thing worse than ketchup on a hot dog is coleslaw.

Adolph Schnicklegruber likes ketchup on hot dogs.

 

[Trapper John]

Adolph Schnicklegruber likes ketchup on hot dogs.

FTW!

 

[ScottM]

FTW!

I am here all week, try the veal

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Gaak. The only thing worse than ketchup on a hot dog is coleslaw.

Coleslaw on BBQ can be good, though. It all depends on personal preference.

Which provides a nice segue. There is a time and place for everything. Including firearms. I don't buy into much of the nonsense surrounding them (and every internet, or coffeeshop, discussion involving guns is 90% pure unconcentrated BS, with pulp - whether it involves [caliber] size, their value to a free society, or how they're necessary to be safe in the jungle that is rural America), but I'll be the first to tell you that they have their place, and that they're right to have that place. A lot of it depends on personal preference.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of [perhaps deliberate] misunderstandings that takes place when it comes to any discussion on guns. Which contributes a great deal to the aforementioned level of BS in the room, then feelings start getting bent because, for whatever reason, people are emotionally invested in the issue; any meaningful discourse becomes impossible.

Back to it, though.

 

[weilke]

How is it lying if the analysis is supported by the relevant facts? Obviously, you know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Just look at the 'more guns --> more gun deaths' and 'lax gun laws ---> more gun deaths' premise of the brady campaign as expressed in this 2009 'study' :

http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm

The campaign chose to present the data in a 'top 5' and 'bottom 5' format and conveniently ignores the 40 states in the middle. In the 'data' they link to,

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart10.htm

they happen to omit the key metrics they reportedly looked at (strength of gun laws, rates of firearm ownership) making it difficult for someone who wishes to look at the merits of the study to do just that.

Once you dig a little bit and look at that 'middle 40' omitted by the brady campaign*, some interesting issues seem to show up:

I am somewhat familiar with the mid-atlantic, simply because I live here these days. Lets just omit DC with its very particular situation and compare the 4 adjacent states that are made up of a mix of urban and rural environments and share a similar climate:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Virginia (lax gun-laws), ownership 35.9% deaths 10.72
Maryland (very strict gun-laws), ownership 22.1%, deaths 12.07
Delaware (lax gun laws): ownership 26.7%, deaths, 9.17
Pennsylvania (lax gun laws) ownership 36.5%, deaths, 10.67

Interesting, isn't it ? In Delaware where you can open carry, concealed carry, buy 30rd magazines all day long (no, they are not 'assault clips')[/FONT] and where people own more guns than in Maryland, the rate of gun deaths is 24% lower .

Leaves me with lots of questions about the 'study' :

- Maybe the three variables have little to do with each other ??

- Or maybe overall gun ownership is not what determines gun deaths ? The sad thing is that the article cited* contains potentially much more meaningful data '% of firearms 'unlocked and loaded in the home' but the brady campaign didnt publish that. IF you look at that part of the data, you will notice that all of the 'top 5' states rank very high in that metric with up to 12.7% of homes reporting a unlocked and loaded firearm#. Cynical me says that brady doesn't report it because it describes a changeable behaviour that is correlated with cultural factors (good-ole boy southern) and is not as convenient in demonizing guns as a whole.

Then firearm deaths would correlate with bow hunting, which they do not.

Cite ?







* http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/e370
# The prevalence of adults with loaded household firearms ranged from 1.6% in Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey to 19.2% in Alabama (median: 7.0%), and the prevalence of adults with loaded and unlocked household firearms ranged from 0.4% in Massachusetts to 12.7% in Alabama (median: 4.2%).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Coleslaw on BBQ can be good, though. It all depends on personal preference.

Which provides a nice segue. There is a time and place for everything.

EXCEPT coleslaw, especially when you're ruining BBQ with it. EEEEEEEWWWWWW!

 

[Anthony]

Nothing wrong with a side o' slaw with barbecue. In fact, in stome states its the law! Puttin a little under the bun ain't too bad neither.

 

[ScottM]

EXCEPT coleslaw, especially when you're ruining BBQ with it. EEEEEEEWWWWWW!

At the COEX in Seoul, S. Korea there is a restaurant near the Kimchi Museum called Jug-Jugs Beer Fusion restaurant and everything you order comes with a giant glob of coleslaw on it. And by coleslaw I mean cabbage with that plasticy Japanese mayonnaise on it.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Nothing wrong with a side o' slaw with barbecue. In fact, in stome states its the law! Puttin a little under the bun ain't too bad neither.

Tell you what, man, tell you what.

Anybody's who never tried some slaw on a pulled pork 'dwich needs to.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Tell you what, man, tell you what.

Anybody's who never tried some slaw on a pulled pork 'dwich needs to.

Yeah, I "tried" it. Took a bite, and said "wtF is THIS doing HERE?" before pulling it all out. Yecch.

 

[Everskyward]

plasticy Japanese mayonnaise

What is it about the Japanese and mayonnaise anyway? I never had mayonnaise on Japanese food here in this country but in Japan it's everywhere, especially for breakfast.

That's obviously an egg and a ham/bacon type product but piled up on the side there is mayonnaise, lots of it.

 

[weilke]

What is it about the Japanese and mayonnaise anyway? I never had mayonnaise on Japanese food here in this country but in Japan it's everywhere, especially for breakfast.

That's obviously an egg and a ham/bacon type product but piled up on the side there is mayonnaise, lots of it.

Yummi !

 

[ScottM]

What is it about the Japanese and mayonnaise anyway? I never had mayonnaise on Japanese food here in this country but in Japan it's everywhere, especially for breakfast.

That's obviously an egg and a ham/bacon type product but piled up on the side there is mayonnaise, lots of it.

You got me. But they do love the stuff. There is a mayonnaise theme resturant in Tokyo where everything has mayo in it. There is even a mayo milkshake.

 

[weilke]

Fun with numbers

I am not trying to twist stats nor argue that Chicago has a higher murder rate. Indeed I agree with you. The simple facts are that having a gun and having more guns around results in more gun deaths. Every stat bears that out.

Sure about that ?

I took the brady campaigns own data and just plotted it out in a different way (see appended pdf). Rather than reporting the outliers at both ends like brady did, I plotted the 40 states 'in the middle' (by firearms related mortality) (Fig1). I also pulled a second metric available in the brady source data, the percentage of households that report a unlocked and loaded firearm (Fig2) and plotted it over firearms mortality.

I am certain that we have a couple of crackerjack statisticians on this forum who could suggest an appropriate statistical test for these two-collumn problems. Looking at the diffuse cloud of datapoints for mere ownership, I dont expect much in terms of statistical significance. The second graph lines up a bit more into a line, with the same size of the population, any correlation found is going to be a lot more significant than the ownership/mortality plot.

 

[Bob Noel]

Re: Fun with numbers

Sure about that ?

I took the brady campaigns own data and just plotted it out in a different way (see appended pdf). Rather than reporting the outliers at both ends like brady did, I plotted the 40 states 'in the middle' (by firearms related mortality) (Fig1). I also pulled a second metric available in the brady source data, the percentage of households that report a unlocked and loaded firearm (Fig2) and plotted it over firearms mortality.

I am certain that we have a couple of crackerjack statisticians on this forum who could suggest an appropriate statistical test for these two-collumn problems. Looking at the diffuse cloud of datapoints for mere ownership, I dont expect much in terms of statistical significance. The second graph lines up a bit more into a line, with the same size of the population, any correlation found is going to be a lot more significant than the ownership/mortality plot.

Any stats on firearm safety training and the impact on firearm injuries and fatalities?

Like MSF motorcycle training for beginners and experienced rides, I'd expect to see some improvement in injury and fatality rates for firearms for owners that have the basic safety training and follow at least some basics (like always leave the firearm unloaded until you are ready to use it).