Will it get wackier? I'm not sure of your point. Would you like to compare equal populations? Texas has about the same population as Australia and has, for the US, an average homicide rate of 5 per 100k. Australia 1 per 100k. Tell me you don't think the method of murder changes with population size.
Has it ever occurred, either to yourself or others, that the people who make up the nation of Australia, are simply not as inclined to engage in the murder of others, than those who make up the nation of the united states? Has the possibility ever been considered that the presence of firearms makes no difference, and that it is the people who are the problem in need of being addressed? Or is it simply too easy to scapegoat the blame to the inanimate object, and thus avoid the difficult questions altogether?
What is the objective evidence that firearms, and only firearms, are directly and exclusively responsible for when they are misused?
You are confusing me again. A saw is not responsible for cutting down a tree. It is a tool. Without it the tree would not be cut down. A handgun is a tool designed to kill fellow humans. The chances of misuse increase with its increasing availability. Studies have shown not having one in the home lowers the risk of injury and death. A good goal.
It is not the fault of myself is confusion is experienced on the part of yourself. Perhaps refrain from discussing matters that are not actually understood on the part of yourself. Does the possession of said saw ultimately force, or otherwise serve as a force of overwhelming motivation, for the given individual to cut down a tree that they would have otherwise left alone if they had no saw? Does the presence of a saw motivate an individual to cut down a tree, simply for the sake of cutting down the tree for no other reason than the simple fact that they can do such? Which is exactly what it was designed to do, and exactly why so many own such. Such does not change anything, nor does it lend credibility to the notion that restricting firearms is necessary or lawful. The same could be argued for any given commercial product. Should motor vehicles be restricted simply because ownership increases the chances of misuse of a motor vehicle? Should private transportation to outlawed in an effort to avoid high-speed pursuits with law enforcement that can get pedestrians and other motorists killed? If not, then ultimately why not? Such studies have been read before, and without exception all are based on the same error in the manner in which they are conducted. They all fail to distinguish between the legal use and ownership of a firearm, and the illegal use and possession of a firearm. All of the studies count legal firearm owners who have no intention of harming anyone, exactly the same as they could prohibited individuals who possess firearms for the express purpose of murdering others. Those who are more likely to be at risk of injury or death are those who are more likely to be engaged in illegal activity at the time. It does not, outside of exceedingly rare circumstances, apply to private individuals who are not predisposed to engaging in illegal activity.
More rationalizations and assumptions without evidence. Of course you may have the urge to cut down the tree, but without a saw you could not do it. You need the motivation and the tool. The same with a handgun and you seem to think only those in possession of an illegal handgun are capable of that. Ridiculous. Use of a motor vehicle is restricted. You need a license, pass a test, have insurance and the right may be taken away from those who misuse the vehicle. Most guns in the home are legal. I’ll await your evidence that illegal gun possession skews the results that guns are a health hazard in the home. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849
The same applies to yourself and countless others. You yourself just stated that one must possess the motivation to make use of a tool for a given task. Would not such mean that one would ultimately need to possess the motivation to actually go and murder an individual in order to utilize a firearm for such a purpose? And the use of firearms is not? There are presently no laws to prohibit murder or assault with a deadly weapon? None whatsoever? Do any of the above serve to do anything to prevent one from misusing a motor vehicle for the express purpose of committing a crime? Do they prevent uninsured drivers from getting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? The evidence is in the work of Arthur Kellermann himself. He admitted openly that he counted individuals who were engaged in criminal activity at the time of possessing a firearm, such as the dealing of illicit narcotic substances, the use of such substances, or engaging in domestic violence.
"12. A disproportionate number of survey respondents were criminals, hence the correlation between gun ownership and murder. "But the survey controlled for criminal backgrounds and domestic violence. The gun/murder correlation was reached after multivariate analysis factored these variables out." http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm He found an independent relationship between guns being kept in the home and an increased risk of a murder happening.
Arthur Kellermann claimed the variables were factored out. But he made no effort of demonstrating just how such was achieved, or what this factoring amounted to.
And despite countless studies confirming that tobacco-related products have no beneficial purpose, and do nothing but harm the general public, they still remain freely available to anyone over the age of eighteen years old, at any convenience store, all without a background check or need of permission to purchase.
That Kellermann’s study is flawed? And... Kellerman is extremely anti-gun biased? Yes, I’d agree. https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html But, there are also more recent studies that show a gun in the home minimizes risk of injury in a home invasion/burglary.... as did the ‘Obama funded’ CDC 2013 report. But, yes, if guns hadn’t been invented... or automobiles, or knives, or.... As for Kellerman’s oft mis reported findings... those that read it and are concerned for their own safety have the liberty to decide if the risk vs benefit to themselves justifies to themselves whether to have a gun in the home or not...they aren’t forced to have one. For me, I would not be this side of the ground if I hadn’t had a gun; my stats, for me, run 100%... I will go with my experience, biased as it is by my experience over an acedemic’s who makes his living fabricating and supporting anti gun biased studies the GCA’s love to endow with political legitimacy.
It was achieved through multivariate analysis. Keeping a gun at home was associated with a 2.7 times greater risk of a homicide occurring (independent of other factors such as previous arrest record, domestic violence, and drug use). That is very significant. "After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506
you do know that the reason these studies use the term homicide vs murder is so they can pad the numbers. Examples. over 60% of all gun deaths are suicide and guns do not cause suicide if they did then countries that have low gun ownership would have very low suicide and not some of the highest. Suicide is considered homicide so that number is included in the study. Also included is self defense so if a home owner kills a attacker that is considered a homicide so would be included in that number. What do you think would happen to their numbers if they took out those and just used murder. then compare that number to how many times a gun is used in self defense including when no shots where fired.
The same work by Arthur Kellermann admitted that renting an apartment rather than owning a home was also associated with a greater risk of a homicide occurring. As was living alone, or instances of domestic violence, abuse of alcoholic substances, or engaging in criminal activity. Owning a firearm was at the very bottom of his list of activities associated with the risk of a homicide occurring. Thus, by the works of Arthur Kellermann himself, one is more likely to be at risk of a homicide if they are engaged in illegal activity, than one would be if they are not engaged in illegal activity. The presence of a firearm ultimately makes no difference.
Yet they offer no constructive benefits, and only serve as a method for the people to kill themselves through cancer and respiratory illnesses. Their sale and use is no different than a member of the public choosing to consume rat poison, or take a lethal amount of aspirin. Yet they remain freely available to anyone in the public who is eighteen years of age or older.
Multivariate analysis, eh. Let’s look at some of the variables... “the Kellermann study actually places guns kept in the home fifth (2.7 ratio) among six risk variables for homicide in the home. The greatest risk factor they identified was actually whether anyone in the household used illicit drugs (5.7 ratio), followed by whether the home was rented and if there was a history of domestic violence (both 4.4 ratios). Even living alone (3.7 ratio) was a greater risk factor than the presence of a gun. If the percentage of gun ownership among the control group was corrected, gun ownership would fall even further down the list.” https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/ I find it a bit humorous G rolls out this study every now and then as if it represents some great revelation. Doesn’t seem to matter he can’t convince folks that Kellerman’s work isn’t biased, debunked and put to bed each time. Almost as bad as many in the anti gun referencing the study as mythical fact. As his data illustrated, if you have a gun in your home, you can improve your odds by not living alone. Believe bunk if you want. Concerned about the risk? Feel free to not have a gun in your home and ....don’t live alone.
The science says over and over that the misuse of a handgun in the home is more probable than it's use. Considering the stakes it would be foolish to own one. What could be behind this denial of reason? One thing it could be is an overriding ideology. You see that in religious fanatics who deny things like evolution or political ideologues who deny climate change. But I don't think ideology is the answer. I know liberals who have a gun in their bedside table. What unites you all in dismissing the evidence is fear.
Science does not say such a thing. Hemenway, who crafted a deeply flawed and debunked study that ant-gunners have promoted as some wishful truth because they like the headline...propaganda for the weak minded, and still pushes as science. It’s about as junk science as you can get. Foolish to own one? I live because of owning one. I am not alone. It’s obvious you didn’t read the criticism I posted above, nor the many others that have been critical of his work. Nor, have you read the 2013 CDC report, https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3 You know the one funded out of OBAMA’s executive budget... a CDC study that anti gunners dishonestly claimed was blocked because of the NRA’s influence in getting the Dicky Amendment passed to deny funding for any CDC study on gun violence. BTW, I have some land in the Florida Glades for sale...cash. A bargain. Send money, I will send title.
Only when the individuals are inclined to engage in criminal activity. There are simply too many private firearm owners, and too few incidents of firearm-related accidents and injuries, for the supposed "science" to be confirmed as being accurate. Humans, by their very nature, are quite stupid. No matter what the available might show as being dangerous and likely to kill them, they will disregard said data and continue to engage in these activities, simply because it is what they want to do. They simply do not care about their own lives, and cannot be made to care. They are specifically engineered on the cellular, emotional, and spiritual levels, to kill themselves and each other.
How many times do I have to explain to you that Kellermann's multivariate analysis found an independent relationship between the presence of a firearm and an increased murder risk?
No matter how many times such a factually-deficient claim is made, it will not serve to change the facts that were recorded. Engaging in criminal activity presents a greater likelihood of being murdered, than legal firearms ownership. Arthur Kellermann can claim all he wants that he took every step to account for such facts and isolate them from his work, but he makes no effort at showing what these steps are. Constantly repeating "multivariate analysis" does not do anything to explain exactly what happened.
