Anti gun statistics...need some help

E

Eoin

New member
need some help on this one

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364

it's been thrown at me on an Australian discussion forum where I am putting the case for gun owners.

If any of you know the background to this research, who funds it, the reputation of the researchers etc., then I would be most grateful.

The link to the discussion is

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=427

No prizes for guessing which one is me

I'm about to gleefully let 'em know about the DC decision.
 
Here's a scholarly article that refutes much of what is presented by Miller, Azrael and Hemenway:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2007/01/problems-with-latest-miller-hemenway.html

A couple of highlights:

They excluded Washington D.C. from their statistics. Why? Perhaps because D.C. has one of the lowest rates of firearm ownership in the US and one of the highest homicide rates. This would skew the results they wanted to get, so they didn't use them.

They use other crime rates to explain the murder rate.

They used data from different years to explain what happened in other years. For example - they correlate the 2000 unemployment rate with the homicide rate from 2001 to 2003

The bottom line is that their results comes from two factors: the exclusion of DC and the use of other crime rates to explain the murder rate. Changing these two factors causes their result to go from positive and significant to negative and significant. I also decided to run these regressions on the robbery rate and doing so produced a statistically significant negative effect whether or not DC was excluded. Using arrest rate data, not shown, also caused the results to be more significantly negative. If I had the necessary panel data handy, my strong presumption is that would also reverse with their result whether or not DC was included.

It is problematic to include the other crime rates in these regressions, particularly since they must believe that guns cause robbery as well as homicide. The results below indicate that more guns mean fewer robberies (again this is using their flawed set up, though I believe that this would continue to be observed with panel data).
Click to expand...

If you can't get to John Lott's page, here's a Google cache of it.

Hope this helps! :)

-Dave
 
Comparing the States to Australia is like comparing apples to oranges. Basically the folks were sold a load of manure by politicians that new gun laws would lower crime with firearms.

If you do a chart you would see that firearms crime and accidents were already on a downward trend before the laws passed. If you discounted statistical abberations like big shootings.

causation
One entry found.

causation

Main Entry: cau·sa·tion
Pronunciation: \kȯ-ˈzā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1615
1 a: the act or process of causing b: the act or agency which produces an effect

suggest they read this from the link you reported:

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.
Click to expand...

if you cant find causation...it means that all that study is subjective opinions....

I have owned firearms for over 30 years now and have not had 1 homicide in my household in 30 years.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234487

you smellin it yet?

junk science.
 
Thank you Gents,
You've been a great help and it's much appreciated.
I would disagree that the USA and Aust are like apples and oranges.
I much prefer the comparisson to be two varieties of apples; we even, more or less, speak the same language:)

One of the problems down here is that the antis use America as an example so we have to respond, or attack, using the same examples. Another thing is that statistics are available from the US in easily understood forms, whereas here one has to wade through statisticians' outpourings, often in graph form and too small to read on a computer. This problem can, of course, be overcome...by buying the relevant Govt. publication.
 
Here's the thing: Statistical models can be MADE to say whatever the analyst WANTS them to say.

Here, the analyst claims to have found that those areas in which homicides occur most frequently are the same areas in which the greatest number of people own a gun. However, the analyst is also drawing an UNFOUNDED CONCLUSION that one is actually caused by the other. How does the analyst know that owning guns CAUSES homicide? How does the analyst NOT KNOW that living in a high-homicide area makes people want to go BUY a gun??? I know if I lived in an area where people started getting killed left and right, I'd go out and arm myself! But, simply arming myself is NOT going to CAUSE me to go kill somebody.

The raw data might be sound (probably not). However, the cause-and-effect relationship of gun-ownership vs. homicide implied by the analyst is complete HUEY!!!
 
I would disagree that the USA and Aust are like apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Did Australians ever have a constitutional right to own firearms?

Your firearms crimes are lower for the whole country that some cities in our states. I would argue that the societies in Auatralia and the US might have some cultural differences.

I am all for everyone having the legal right to own a firearm. Just that on the pro gun side when arguing we should approach it with some statistical and intellectual honesty...we dont want to get caught playing the fiction game like anti-gunners.

Passing laws do not make if a difference if they are not funded and the manpower made available. A law is not a magic wand. Criminals are known not to obey the law.
 
Another point would be the overall level of crime before and after gun bans. It skyrocketed over in Europe and I think it did in Australia as well but I'm not as sure how much more it did. Europe was planning a pointed-knife-ban a while back but I don't know if it was passed or not. Just shows that criminals will take any weapon possible. Even a big stick. Crap, now they are going to outlaw trees. :rolleyes:
 
Arguing statistics is a futile pursuit. Simplest reality is that the majority of guns and gun owners are NOT involved in crimes and no freedom should be denied where the practice does not injure others. Criminal activity injures others, but that is a category independent of gun ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top