reonhato said:
i went and got some more for you just in case. go nuts, ill see you in a week
go nuts
A WEEK!!!??? Now I know you are not a college student.
Beyond that thank you for finally providing some sources. However some of those sources I actually recognize (I assume at least one of the NEJM articles is one of the ones I have seen) so I would not get your hopes up as to my reaction.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleResults
Interesting parts
-One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects, as compared with 35.8 percent of the homes of the control subjects
-the link between gun ownership and homicide was due entirely to a strong association between gun ownership and homicide by firearms. Homicide by other means was not significantly linked to the presence or absence of a gun in the home.
-Underreporting of gun ownership by control respondents could bias our estimate of risk upward.
-our study was restricted to homicides occurring in the home of the victim. The dynamics of homicides occurring in other locations (such as bars, retail establishments, or the street) may be quite different
-Third, it is possible that reverse causation accounted for some of the association we observed between gun ownership and homicide -- i.e., in a limited number of cases, people may have acquired a gun in response to a specific threat. If the source of that threat subsequently caused the homicide, the link between guns in the home and homicide may be due at least in part to the failure of these weapons to provide adequate protection from the assailants.
-A gun kept in the home is far more likely to be involved in the death of a member of the household than it is to be used to kill in self-defense
Analysis- The basic problem with the study is that there are too many variables and not enough evidence. When was the gun purchased? Was the gun even ?in? the home? Are the number of firearm owners even accurate? They used large populated counties and ignored rural areas. Very few gun incidents lead to killing so how many self defense encounters were there? And on.
Overall the study is interesting but inconclusive.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Once again only metropolitan areas and once again did not factor in number of gun incidents that did not involve shooting.
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644%2803%2900256-7/abstract
Copy and paste most of the problems from the first two (why do I have a bad feeling about the fact that the first three articles have the same problems)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199112053252305
Once again misses that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. How the hell would that gun ban take full effect in one month? The fact is that there are hundreds of factors that can change homicide rates and even their own graph shows rates going up and down. In fact let us do this- Here is a table with the homicide rates draw DIRECTLY from the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm) Here are the numbers for DC and a few pro and anti gun states (sorry I did not do the full 50 years for all the other states but I have a life), First is year, then population, then murders and negligent homicides and finally rate per 100,000 people (I hope you appreciate this because the actual page does not include the rate).
District of Columbia
1960 763,956 81 10.7
1961 763,956 88 11.6
1962 784,000 91 11.7
1963 798,000 95 11.9
1964 808,000 132 16.3
1965 803,000 148 18.5
1966 808,000 141 17.4
1967 809,000 178 22.0
1968 809,000 195 24.1
1969 798,000 287 35.9
1970 756,510 221 29.1
1971 741,000 275 37.2
1972 748,000 245 32.7
1973 746,000 268 35.7
1974 723,000 277 38.5
1975 716,000 235 32.6
1976 702,000 188 26.9
1977 690,000 192 27.8
1978 674,000 189 28.2
1979 656,000 180 27.3
1980 635,233 200 31.3
1981 636,000 223 34.8
1982 631,000 194 30.8
1983 623,000 183 29.5
1984 623,000 175 28.2
1985 626,000 147 23.3
1986 626,000 194 30.8
1987 622,000 225 36.3
1988 620,000 369 59.5
1989 604,000 434 72.3
1990 606,900 472 77.4
1991 598,000 482 80.3
1992 589,000 443 75.1
1993 578,000 454 78.3
1994 570,000 399 70.0
1995 554,000 360 65.5
1996 543,000 397 73.5
1997 529,000 301 56.8
1998 523,000 260 50.0
1999 519,000 241 46.3
2000 572,059 239 41.9
2001 573,822 231 40.5
2002 569,157 264 46.3
2003 557,620 249 44.5
2004 554,239 198 36.0
2005 582,049 195 33.6
2006 581,530 169 29.1
2007 588,292 181 30.7
2008 590,074 186 31.5
2009 599,657 144 24.0
New York
1970 18,190,740 1,444 7.9
1980 17,506,690 2,228 12.7
1990 17,990,455 2,605 14.5
2000 18,976,457 952 5.0
Illinois
1970 11,113,976 1,066 9.6
1980 11,355,062 1,205 10.6
1990 11,430,602 1,182 10.3
2000 12,419,293 898 7.2
Maryland
1970 3,922,399 362 9.2
1980 4,192,211 399 9.5
1990 4,781,468 552 11.5
2000 5,296,486 430 8.1
Massachusetts
1970 5,689,170 197 3.5
1980 5,728,288 232 4.0
1990 6,016,425 243 4.0
2000 6,349,097 125 2.0
Virginia
1970 4,648,494 483 10.4
1980 5,323,412 459 8.6
1990 6,187,358 545 8.8
2000 7,078,515 401 5.7
Montana
1970 694,409 22 3.2
1980 781,592 31 4.0
1990 799,065 39 4.9
2000 902,195 20 2.2
Nevada
1970 488,738 43 8.8
1980 800,312 160 20.0
1990 1,201,833 116 9.7
2000 1,998,257 129 6.5
New Hampshire
1970 737,681 15 2.0
1980 919,114 23 2.5
1990 1,109,252 21 1.9
2000 1,235,786 22 1.8
Texas
1970 11,196,000 1,299 11.6
1980 14,169,829 2,392 16.9
1990 16,986,510 2,389 14.0
2000 20,851,820 1,238 5.9
So you notice that DC?s rate is lowest in the early-mid 60s before the ban was in place. It then started going up and sort of leveled off after the ban was in place then in the late 80s early 90s it shot way up. Since the early 2000s it has slowly been coming back down. If the DC gun ban was a success then what the hell is with that jump? Also why have the number not gotten back to the level they were at in the 1960s?
As for the other states you see that both Montana and New Hampshire despite having loose gun laws still equals or beats Massachusetts? rates. And in the 2000s after the concealed carry law went into effect Texas has a lower rate than Illinois. And New York benefits from the less stringent laws of the rest of the state (New York City has very strict gun laws but the rest of the state is more lax). Overall the presence or absence of strict gun laws is not the significant factor.
I have no idea where the NEJM got their numbers but I got mine from the FBI and the FBI says that they are wrong.
BTW try someone other than the NEJM since they do not know what the hell they are talking about (not surprising given it is from Massachusetts).
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html
I am not even going to read that. What am I, John Lotts keeper? Why do I have to defend him?
http://www.veganpeace.com/gun_control/GunAvailability.htm
Forgive me but I have a hard time trusting this particular source so I went to the CDCs website and plugged in the info. What it showed was that the studies numbers were completely wrong. Actual number of deaths is 48-49.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
(Sorry you will have to plug in the info yourself in order to see the numbers)
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity.ars
Fails to take into account the fact that a gun might be brought for that specific purpose and it misses most of the same things as the other articles. What?s more you did not even quote the study itself. A blog is not an appropriate source in this intance.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
I am beginning to sound like a broken record- Copy and paste most of the problems from the first two and others
http://www.livescience.com/1216-homicide-rates-higher-states-guns-home.html
Completely wrong. Some states with high gun ownership have high crime but the same can be said of states with low gun ownership. Take a look at Maryland in relation to Montana.
http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/IndexCrimeRates03.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
Can you find someone outside the People?s Republic of Massachusetts to support your finings?
Beyond that without reading all of those studies I cannot make an accurate conclusion as to their validity but I can say that they probably have many of the same problems that the previous articles you mentioned have.
http://pearlyabraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-guns1.html
I would love to see some statistics that back up the idea that gun crime is 19 time more likely to occur than self defense.
Got to love the fact that this essay is saying that consumption of TV (and by extension game violence) is ?best predictor of later aggression?. You especially have to love it when it is quoted on a media based website.
Wrong on the effectiveness of guns in terms of suicide- all forms of suicide are equally lethal assuming intent. If a person truly wants to end it all they choose effective methods. Ineffective methods are chosen by people who do not particularly wish to commit suicide. How do you tell if a person who cut their wrist actually wanted to die? Simple, did they cut across the wrist or along the vein? A gunshot to the head is a pretty damn effective way to kill yourself. He tries to dismiss this but the basic fact is if a person truly want to kill themselves then hanging and jumping off a tall building will be 100% effective.
The author states that-
A gun, however, dramatically reduces all above.Guns allow people to :
? Kill victims from afar.
So do bows and arrows
? maintain a much greater element of surprise, secrecy and anonymity.
Surprise maybe but you will not have much secrecy or anonymity after the first shot, a bow would do the job effectively and a bomb would maintain anonymity better
? Kill larger and stronger people.
A knife can do that
? Kill crowds.
A bomb can do that much easier
? Frighten away people who might otherwise help.
I suppose they have never heard of the Kitty Genovese case- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese
? Assume almost no risk of injury from personal struggle.
Bullshit- especially in an armed society
? Leave no tell-tale blood or other physical evidence on the murderer.
Since when does position of a gun mean you don?t leave hair or skin samples? Then there is the whole ballistics thing.
? Leave the victim less likely to survive or see him to testify against him.
If a knifeman wants a person dead they can kill just as effectively as a gunman
Bank robberies were not common before the age of the gun because banks were not common. In fact most of the banks were owned by churches (albeit indirectly). Robbing a church bank is a good way to have a band of a few hundred knights chasing you and later being burned at the stake. As for why it is effective now two armed men with the initiative can easily defeat one untrained, poorly paid, unfit security guard easily. The guard is meant to deter your casual robber but not a determined robber. That is why bank employees are trained to call the police (in modern times) or run out the back door and call the sheriff (in the olden days).
Lots and lots of illogical blather. Rhetorically it may work but the statistics do not show that Switzerland has a lower murder rate than the UK (also completely wrong about gun laws in Switzerland). Completely dismisses Israel for no good reason. Does not even mention the Czech Republic or Canada. Also ignores the fact that murder rates and crime in general have been falling in the US despite the increase in pistol production.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
We are a violent society but our ownership of guns makes us a deadly society. That is one hell of a statement I am sure he has some form of proof to back that up?..finished reading and no proof. People have the ability to be violent. They typically aren?t. If the supposition that every fight or every burst of anger would lead a CHL to kill someone else were true then where is the evidence? I have been angry before. In fact a few weeks ago I was carrying and I had a awful day. Some idiot came to push my buttons and what happened? I walked away. Hell if you want more anecdotal evidence there is this little honky tonk me and my friend would go to after hunting. So we had knives, pistols, and rifles on our person. How many people did we kill for getting in our faces while drunk? None. Circumstantial maybe but you need to provide better evidence.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/09/death-by-the-barrel.html
Wrong about where Mexican guns come from. I would like to see some statistics proving that guns are more often used in crime than self defense.
-?Ask criminals why they carried a gun while robbing the convenience store and frequently the answer is, "So I could get the money and not have to hurt anyone."?
The fact that he believes that does not prove his intelligence.
Child proof guns? Why? Guns are rarely used in the accidental deaths of children. Intelligent decisions on the placement and condition of firearms is far more important than his inane ideas.
Overall not bad but you defiantly need far more proof in order to convince me.
