Britain Is Bleeding

The problem with america is that it thinks it rules the planet, and attempts to.

 

DId you look at the actual data? Looking at table 1, we see that:

1. 95% of the case group were Black or Hispanic males
2. Alcohol or drugs were involved in almost 40% of case studies
3. 53% had prior arrests.
4. 83% of the control group were outside, in an area of Philadelphia known for its high number of drug sales.
5. The control group actually had a higher percentage of gun possession.

If you think that this study has anything to do with the risk of a lawful, non-urban, non-drug selling gun owner, you're not paying attention.

 

That risk increases with aspects such as alcohol is pretty obvious (making it important to have numerous control variables). However, we still have the uncomfortable result that gun ownership is associated with higher risk of victimisation.

Can you refer to a study that suggests otherwise? Send over the reference!

 

No, we have a study that says Black and Hispanic men selling drugs outside, known to have drugs and cash on their persons, are at a higher risk of fatal attack.

"Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

 

I expect you to ignore the meaning of the analysis. That unfortunately is the norm. What we have is numerous risk factors that need to be controlled. What we also have is an empirical literature that shows gun owners, ceteris paribus, are more likely to be victims. The only issue is whether you are capable of referring to a study that suggests otherwise. Have a try!

 

You keep referring to studies with obvious flaws that don't hold up to real world experience. Once an empirical analysis is complete, you've got to take it back to the real world. Even the authors of the study you cite don't claim "gun owners, ceteris paribus, are more likely to be victims". They only point out that urban gun possessors actively involved in drug deals on the street have a higher risk

Do you acknowledge that owning car gives an increased risk of death?

 

This made me laugh. I refer to studies, you do not (and hide when you're asked to). When you read the studies which I kindly provide (showing you haven't bothered to do the required research) you pretend flaw when actually you just refer to the need for additional control variables.

The authors find that gun ownership increases victimisation. The various studies include control variables and therefore the comment "gun owners, ceteris paribus, are more likely to be victims" is valid.

Has anyone claimed here that cars reduce the chances of victimisation?

 

Every study you've ever linked to is flawed. You seem to be some type of academic with no real world experience. Please tell me how a study where almost the entire case group is 95% minority actively engaged in a criminal activity involving drugs and cash.

Show a single study where the case group is law abiding white CCW holders.

The authors of the study you linked only referred to "urban" gun possessors, not owners, and did not differentiate between lawfully owned firearms and those illegally owned by criminals.

How did the control group have a higher gun ownership rate and a lower homicide rate if gun ownership leads to more risk?

 

A claim for which there is no factual evidence to demonstrate it as being correct. There is no evidence that the legal possession of a firearm increases the probability of becoming a victim of violent crime.

 

You don't understand flaw though do you? You've assumed flaw, when all you've really done is refer to what we all accept: there is a need for control variables. A grown up response would be characterised by one of two approaches: either genuinely refer to empirical bias or refer to an alternative study. You achieve neither as you aren't interested in evidence.

This made me laugh. Referring to empirical research is referring to the 'real world'. You just don't like that it disagrees with your bias. Well boo bleedin hoo!

Because of the nature of their study. This of course just one of many. Unlike you, I have no problem with referring to the evidence. I'm even able to refer to evidence that suggests crime reduction effects from gun availability. See, for example, van Kesteren (2014, Revisiting the Gun Ownership and Violence Link: A Multilevel Analysis of Victimisation Survey Data, The British Journal of Criminology, Vol 54, pp 53–72). However, even then they conclude I'm right in what I've said: "At the individual level, owners of handguns are significantly more often victims of contact crimes. When controls are introduced for known risk factors such as age, gender, income, educational level, frequency of going out, living with a partner and size of the town of residence, owning a handgun remains a risk factor for victimization by contact crimes. The result was not altered by entering victimization by property crime, a proxy for a risk-taking lifestyle, as an extra control. A multilevel analysis that involved both individual factors related to victimization and country-level factors confirms the conclusion that owning a handgun brings a higher risk for victimization by contact crime"

You seem to be struggling with the paper's purpose. Its about possession and whether it protects. Sorry, "After we adjusted for confounding factors, individuals who were in possession of a gun were 4.46 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.16, 17.04) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession"

 

I've pointed out a case group that is all criminal, no matter what your academic analysis claims, is not sufficient to extend any of the findings to a population that is nearly all law abiding and non-urban.

You seem unable to understand that you have to compare the results to the real world.

Show us a study in the US that does not include criminal possession as part of the case study.

And the entire population of the case group in that study was involved in a criminal activity, outside, where they were known by their assaulters to be carrying high value cash and drugs. Show us a study that focuses on the day to day lives of an entirely non-criminal population.

 

They of course refer to how the empirical analysis is urban. Other than that, you're just attacking for the sake of it.

It is 'real world', given it is empirical. You just demand that it agrees with your biased outlook. Sorry chum, objective analysis doesn't work that way!

More 'head in sand'. I gave you a study that, using random sampling methods, supports my position. You again only inform me that you don't understand the methods employed and you aren't capable of making relevant critique.

I can keep going and refer to more studies (and you can again stick cheese in your ears). Take, for example, Dahlberg et al. (2003, Guns in the home and risk of violent death in the home: Findings from a national study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160, 929–936):

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

All of this depends upon the population at risk, not the general population. What you're saying is nothing more than garbage in, garbage out.

 

More drivel. Most of the studies use random sampling methods.

 

Exactly the problem. The risk for someone in Detroit is far different that for me.

 

Your reply tells me only how little you understand about the empirical process. How dull

 

Is the risk for a gang member in Detroit any different for a white male CCW holder in say, Sequim, Washington?

What is the actual risk involved?

 

But you don't know jack about risk assessment.

 

http://perbylund.com/2008/08/why-empirical-research-isnt-scientific/
http://researchmethods.org/problems-em-res.pdf

 

For one, the risk is as close to zero as you can get. The other not so much.

 

I love this. You're essentially attempting to say post-truth is actually logical. Crikey, where are the sensible pro-gunners? The sample on here can't seriously be representative of the population? Or are they?

 

Please. You and I meeting together and discussing my like of Jameson's and your like of Bushmill's is unlikely to get one or both of us shot. In the hood, you might get killed because of your shoes. You ignore populations at risk to your detriment.

 

Again, I referred to random samples that are therefore a non-biased measure of the US population. Results just don't agree with your bias and your like of poor quality whiskey. Now you're boring me. There is only so much of "I donner likes research I donts" I can take. Enjoy celebrating the illogical with the other pro-gunners while I'm gone

 

Poor quality? The Irish invented the stuff and got it right the first time. The rest are just pretenders with pretty bottles.

 

Random samples won't get down to the nature of gun violence in the US. To say so is just silly.