New anti gun "study" you'll love...

[WillBrink]

No bias or agenda here! :rolleyes::eek::rolleyes:

Per usual, focusing on the tool vs the outcome. Obviously, countries with more guns will have higher rates of gun related deaths. Wow, ground breaking stuff. Murder rates and violent crime rates are what matter and when one overlaps gun ownership rates with murder (because that's what matters) you get very different conclusion (1)

Countries With Lower Gun Ownership Are Safer than Those with Higher Gun Ownership, Reports The American Journal of Medicine

A new study reports that countries with lower gun ownership are safer than those with higher gun ownership, debunking the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer. Researchers evaluated the possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness, and the risk of firearm-related death by studying the data for 27 developed countries. Their findings are published in the current issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

Cont; HERE (http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=134542&CultureCode=en)

1 = See:

Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence (http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/)

[HackerF15E]

I hear also that countries with higher rates of car ownership have more auto accidents.

[WillBrink]

I hear also that countries with higher rates of car ownership have more auto accidents.

Nooooooooooooo :p

[THCDDM4]

Great. Yet another BS report I am going to have to spend copius amounts of time debunking/explaining to idiots who don't research or understand the way the statistics are represented.

I'm getting tired of doing peoples homework/thinking for them...

It is sad how few critical thinkers still exist in this day and age.

They take whatever they are given and just eat it up instead of actually putting in the time to understand what they are looking at and what it means when broken down objectively.

Most of them wont even look at the study, just take the conclusion and run with it all over social media! So frustrating! :bad:

Yay!

[Phillygunguy]

As a person who works in healthcare in regard to the article, I CALL BULLSHIT !
Did anyone think because the US is so friggin over populated may come into play? more people = more violence regardless of having guns or not

[WillBrink]

As a person who works in healthcare in regard to the article, I CALL BULLSHIT !
Did anyone think because the US is so friggin over populated may come into play? more people = more violence regardless of having guns or not

The levels of BS one can call on this study are almost endless really. How that could pass peer review is telling of how biased the med community is on this topic. The excellent study I linked above, does an excellent job of attempting to account for the obvious variables (and of course concluded gun ownership does not = increased murder nor suicide rates...), got exactly zero press of course and was not exactly published in some rinky dink journal either.

[ramairthree]

Yep,
because I would feel way safer living in a country with fewer per capita guns, no plumbing, no sewer, no modern hospitals, and people come massacre our village with machetes

than

in the USA on a street where I wave to the WWII vet, the Korean War vet, a couple of VN vets, and every other house is a current or former Ranger Bn, SF, or other SOF unit veteran and there must be a ton of scary guns.

[SpankMonkey]

Great. Yet another BS report I am going to have to spend copius amounts of time debunking/explaining to idiots who don't research or understand the way the statistics are represented.

I'm getting tired of doing peoples homework/thinking for them...

It is sad how few critical thinkers still exist in this day and age.

They take whatever they are given and just eat it up instead of actually putting in the time to understand what they are looking at and what it means when broken down objectively.

Most of them wont even look at the study, just take the conclusion and run with it all over social media! So frustrating! :bad:

Yay!

Quit talking to stupid people. No more problem.

[dhrith]

That rebuttal article is excellent. Although a long sumbitch.

[WillBrink]

That rebuttal article is excellent. Although a long sumbitch.

Article I posted or something else? The second article I linked to pre dates this new POS "study" by years BTW, but it's a A+ to be sure.

[Failure2Stop]

I can promise that the first year that shows a 7.112 billion death rate will be followed by super-low violent crime rate.
:rolleyes:

[ChicagoTex]

Great. Yet another BS report I am going to have to spend copius amounts of time debunking/explaining to idiots who don't research or understand the way the statistics are represented.

I'm getting tired of doing peoples homework/thinking for them...

It is sad how few critical thinkers still exist in this day and age.

They take whatever they are given and just eat it up instead of actually putting in the time to understand what they are looking at and what it means when broken down objectively.

Most of them wont even look at the study, just take the conclusion and run with it all over social media! So frustrating!

Yay!

Maybe you're more persuasive than I am, but after spending 15 years being the guy with the real stats/the guy who can explain why these anti-gun stats are BS, I realized that I never persuaded a single soul to any degree.

Gun rights, like other things such as abortion, religion, homosexuality, social philosophies, etc are just one of those things that people make up their minds on very early in their rational lives - usually with a tremendous amount of emotional investment. In my experience, there is no set of numbers on the planet that can dispel the strength of those convictions, as the numbers are completely detached from any "human" context. For this reason, counterintuitively enough, WHY you carry may very well be a stronger argument than the stats surrounding the issue demonstrating it as a proven collective good.

In March of 2007, I was traveling down a country road (55mph) when I was hit head-on by a woman too busy dicking around with her cell phone to realize she had drifted into the oncoming lane at a blind corner. Long story made short: I've suffered significant physical injury that has eliminated my ability to run and drastically reduced my ability to defend myself without a weapon. While I would absolutely carry anyway if I was in perfect health, I've found explaining this "personal" angle has fostered actual consideration from friends and acquaintances with anti-gun positions. I'd be lying if I said it instantly turned anyone from anti-gun to pro-gun, but it has given a couple people the idea to consider some form exception for the disabled/hindered/elderly. It's a start.

[WillBrink]

Maybe you're more persuasive than I am, but after spending 15 years being the guy with the real stats/the guy who can explain why these anti-gun stats are BS, I realized that I never persuaded a single soul to any degree.

Gun rights, like other things such as abortion, religion, homosexuality, social philosophies, etc are just one of those things that people make up their minds on very early in their rational lives - usually with a tremendous amount of emotional investment. In my experience, there is no set of numbers on the planet that can dispel the strength of those convictions, as the numbers are completely detached from any "human" context. For this reason, counterintuitively enough, WHY you carry may very well be a stronger argument than the stats surrounding the issue demonstrating it as a proven collective good.

In March of 2007, I was traveling down a country road (55mph) when I was hit head-on by a woman too busy dicking around with her cell phone to realize she had drifted into the oncoming lane at a blind corner. Long story made short: I've suffered significant physical injury that has eliminated my ability to run and drastically reduced my ability to defend myself without a weapon. While I would absolutely carry anyway if I was in perfect health, I've found explaining this "personal" angle has fostered actual consideration from friends and acquaintances with anti-gun positions. I'd be lying if I said it instantly turned anyone from anti-gun to pro-gun, but it has given a couple people the idea to consider some form exception for the disabled/hindered/elderly. It's a start.

I have changed the minds of some on issues you listed above, but no, it's not common or easy, that's for sure.

I used to be much more willing to engage in debates on gun control for example, but the time and energy it takes, I tend to avoid it now most of the time.

[Belmont31R]

It's extremely easy to look at one data set and see that because we have a lot of guns that set of data must correlate to guns.



Let me know when A western/Northern European country gets inundated with tens of millions of illegals from a 3rd world country and has a subset of the population in the tens of millions that has astronomical crime rates. We also have the WOD which fuels inner city violence.

And Europe is not immune to mass casualty attacks. Just in the past few years they've had several mass attacks on citizens not much different from our own. Our media just doesn't cover it and they'd prefer for Americans to think we're unusual in that regard because of the 'gun culture'.

There are also other social dynamics. Americans act like we have all this pent up stress all the time and are some selfish mfers.

[Smuckatelli]

Nooooooooooooo :p

Here's a study from Harvard.....your above post is what the antigun bubbas would probably answer with:

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.


To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[WillBrink]

Here's a study from Harvard.....your above post is what the antigun bubbas would probably answer with:

"This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.


To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Was posted in my OP. :cool:

[Smuckatelli]

Was posted in my OP. :cool:

Sorry Will, I clicked on your first link and started reading, I didn't make it to the second link....:o