Makes sense to me. The more people you have, the more food gets ate......the more fights........More X=more Things that happen because of X http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/guns_murders_dc
More guns=more Murder (with guns)!?!?
- Thread starter Trapp
- Start date
WSM MAGNUM
New member
That`s a load of crap. Facts show that the more people that owns guns, murder, rape, and other crimes go down.
It`s the criminals that may have raised the murder rates up in some states due to too much gun control laws.
It`s the criminals that may have raised the murder rates up in some states due to too much gun control laws.
Also, as Lott's study has shown, many of those "homicides" are not being identified as "DGU" (Defensive Gun use; i.e. SELF DEFENSE).
Any that catagory of "children" includes gang-bangers of military service age.
Bunch of BS....
I'm not really political but its ironic how this "study" gets ink as the Dems take office (I wonder who funded this?)
Any that catagory of "children" includes gang-bangers of military service age.
Bunch of BS....
I'm not really political but its ironic how this "study" gets ink as the Dems take office (I wonder who funded this?)
Statistics can be - and are - misused.
If there were NO guns in the world, there would obviously be no murders using guns. But that does not mean that guns CAUSE murders. If that were true, there would be very high murder rates at gun manufacturing plants and gun stores - which is clearly not the case.
Oh! And this is scientific...
The "study" was performed by analyzing data from a telephone survey conducted in 2001 by the CDC "and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide."
Further, this "study" doesn't even qualify as a meta-analysis, as only two sets of data was used. A limited set of questions and answers from the above survey was compared to the FBI's Crime Data for that year.
What we are left with is supposition of correlation minus a definitive matrix of causation. But that is more than enough for the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
Other Press Releases from the Harvard School of Public Health:
Study Finds Firearms Are Stored Less Safely in Homes With Older Children (August 07, 2006)(The National Firearms Study 2004 was supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.)
Survey Finds Association Between Presence of Gun in Vehicle and Aggressive Driver Behavior (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)(it was hard to ferret this one out, but the datatset used by this article was funded by... The Joyce Foundation.)
American Females at Highest Risk for Murder (April 17, 2002)(The study was supported in part by grants from the Joyce Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)(this study is a subset of the following study)
Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5–14 Year Olds (March, 2002 issue of Trauma)(This research was supported in part by grants from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Joyce Foundation, the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the Center on Crimes,
Communities and Culture of the Open Society Institute.)
Violent Death Among Children Linked to Household Firearms (February 19, 2002)(The study was supported in part by the Joyce Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Programs to Track Firearm Injuries Awarded Harvard Grants (October 25, 1999)(The Joyce Foundation among the list of grantees.)
Anger and Violence in U.S. Public Schools Documented in Harvard-MetLife Survey (October 14, 1998)(The Harvard-MetLife Survey on Youth Violence is funded by a grant from the Metropolitan Life Foundation. "Squash It!" receives major funding from The Joyce Foundation and the Metropolitan Life Foundation.)
TV Industry and Harvard Team Up to Recruit Mentors for At-Risk Youth (June 4, 1998)(the first grant provided to Harvard by the Joyce Foundation)
It took me about two hours (from when Armando first posted and I read this thread) to uncover much about Harvard's participation and the Joyce Foundation link. Glad I refreshed the page, as gb_in_ga has found the same info, but from another direction. The bonus being that through the link to Alphecca, most of what I was writing about appears there.
The "study" was performed by analyzing data from a telephone survey conducted in 2001 by the CDC "and Prevention’s 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone survey with over 200,000 respondents nationwide."
The original press release can be found here. This page includes a link to the abstract of the "study." To get the full document, one must pay a $30 fee.
Further, this "study" doesn't even qualify as a meta-analysis, as only two sets of data was used. A limited set of questions and answers from the above survey was compared to the FBI's Crime Data for that year.
What we are left with is supposition of correlation minus a definitive matrix of causation. But that is more than enough for the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.
Other Press Releases from the Harvard School of Public Health:
Study Finds Firearms Are Stored Less Safely in Homes With Older Children (August 07, 2006)(The National Firearms Study 2004 was supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.)
Survey Finds Association Between Presence of Gun in Vehicle and Aggressive Driver Behavior (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)(it was hard to ferret this one out, but the datatset used by this article was funded by... The Joyce Foundation.)
American Females at Highest Risk for Murder (April 17, 2002)(The study was supported in part by grants from the Joyce Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)(this study is a subset of the following study)
Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5–14 Year Olds (March, 2002 issue of Trauma)(This research was supported in part by grants from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, the Joyce Foundation, the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the Center on Crimes,
Communities and Culture of the Open Society Institute.)
Violent Death Among Children Linked to Household Firearms (February 19, 2002)(The study was supported in part by the Joyce Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)
Programs to Track Firearm Injuries Awarded Harvard Grants (October 25, 1999)(The Joyce Foundation among the list of grantees.)
Anger and Violence in U.S. Public Schools Documented in Harvard-MetLife Survey (October 14, 1998)(The Harvard-MetLife Survey on Youth Violence is funded by a grant from the Metropolitan Life Foundation. "Squash It!" receives major funding from The Joyce Foundation and the Metropolitan Life Foundation.)
TV Industry and Harvard Team Up to Recruit Mentors for At-Risk Youth (June 4, 1998)(the first grant provided to Harvard by the Joyce Foundation)
It took me about two hours (from when Armando first posted and I read this thread) to uncover much about Harvard's participation and the Joyce Foundation link. Glad I refreshed the page, as gb_in_ga has found the same info, but from another direction. The bonus being that through the link to Alphecca, most of what I was writing about appears there.
Trapp
See "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott
Criminals know that people are carryting guns and they are reticent to commit crimes in public spaces because either the victim or a bystander might shoot them.
Criminals are known to accost only victims they think they can easily overpower... like old people and women...or lesser numbers, etc.
Burglars are less inclined to B&E a home where the occupants are believed to be armed...
Only the professional thief would even consider it... and he will always choose target homes that are easier and safer for him...
In Right to Carry States... many violent crimes and stalkings, and the like, are down quite noticeably!
(FBI stats)
In Florida... they passed a law allowing citizens to shoot carjackers during the commision of their crimes...
NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
The carjacking epidemic in Florida all but disappeared OVERNIGHT!
See "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott
Criminals know that people are carryting guns and they are reticent to commit crimes in public spaces because either the victim or a bystander might shoot them.
Criminals are known to accost only victims they think they can easily overpower... like old people and women...or lesser numbers, etc.
Burglars are less inclined to B&E a home where the occupants are believed to be armed...
Only the professional thief would even consider it... and he will always choose target homes that are easier and safer for him...
In Right to Carry States... many violent crimes and stalkings, and the like, are down quite noticeably!
(FBI stats)
In Florida... they passed a law allowing citizens to shoot carjackers during the commision of their crimes...
NO QUESTIONS ASKED!
The carjacking epidemic in Florida all but disappeared OVERNIGHT!
What I want to know is why the researchers grouped the states instead of analyzing each state individually. It seems like the researchers wanted to nullify states in northern New England and out West with high rates of firearm ownership yet low murder rates. This study has "Simpson's Paradox" written all over it.
This is interesting:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6601/p3
Five factors correlated more strongly with the prevalence of firearm-related homicide than the firearm ownership rate, but guess which factor the researcherd decided to focus on?
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/1/12/6601/p3
Five factors correlated more strongly with the prevalence of firearm-related homicide than the firearm ownership rate, but guess which factor the researcherd decided to focus on?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Please read entire post before attacking sentences or phrases
I hate watching people scramble to try and defend themselves whenever a piece of information that seems contrary to what they want to believe is released.
I am afraid I agree with this study in some way. I do not think that guns are the real issue but I do believe they play a factor in the homicide rate.
The info I would need before putting too much weight on this study though would be the difference in gun ownership between the top quartile and the bottom, the balance between inner-city/suburb/rural living, the standard of living of those states, and information on some key social issues of the states in each quartile.
That being said...I do believe, at any given time, a certain percentage of the population is unstable. Of these people many are experiencing personal crisis or other issues that have them on the edge of breaking. And then you have people that just are of questionable character (gangbangers, criminals)
If a higher percentage of the population has guns then it stands to reason a higher number of people that are in these catagories will probably have guns too.
When Joe Loser decided he can't take it anymore during his messy divorce and goes over to his old home and shoots his kids, wife, and her new bf he is going to be more likely to succede if he has a shotgun or pistol than he would if he had a pointy stick. A similar event just happened here in WA a few days ago. Also, when Billy Badguy decides to rob a bar or liquor store he is much more likely to be able to kill anyone that fights back if he has an actual firearm than if he has a bar of soap in his pocket.
This however does not equate to "guns are bad". It means there are alot of people out there that are "bad", ill, confused, etc that are not being given either the help they need or the proper incentive to not break the law. A stronger health system, a better quality of living, and harsher penalties for criminals would be a better answer to the problem then banning guns.
Blaming guns is like blaming a dog attack upon a child on the dogs teeth. Of course you can say "if that dog didn't have teeth he wouldn't have been able to do so much damage" but the real issue should be "why wasn't that dog trained to know better than to attack a child, why wasn't he secured where he could not get to a child, and how do we make sure future dogs do not do it?" You don't go around and pull all the town dogs teeth.
People just hate to deal with the complex problems of life and instead find it much easier to try and come up with scapegoats and simple fixes.
One lesson I do take from this study though, is to make sure and secure your firearms. Only responsible adults should have access. not friends or neighbors if they walk in your home, not small children, not your teen son or daughter you suspect of drug abuse or gang activity, etc.
I hate watching people scramble to try and defend themselves whenever a piece of information that seems contrary to what they want to believe is released.
I am afraid I agree with this study in some way. I do not think that guns are the real issue but I do believe they play a factor in the homicide rate.
The info I would need before putting too much weight on this study though would be the difference in gun ownership between the top quartile and the bottom, the balance between inner-city/suburb/rural living, the standard of living of those states, and information on some key social issues of the states in each quartile.
That being said...I do believe, at any given time, a certain percentage of the population is unstable. Of these people many are experiencing personal crisis or other issues that have them on the edge of breaking. And then you have people that just are of questionable character (gangbangers, criminals)
If a higher percentage of the population has guns then it stands to reason a higher number of people that are in these catagories will probably have guns too.
When Joe Loser decided he can't take it anymore during his messy divorce and goes over to his old home and shoots his kids, wife, and her new bf he is going to be more likely to succede if he has a shotgun or pistol than he would if he had a pointy stick. A similar event just happened here in WA a few days ago. Also, when Billy Badguy decides to rob a bar or liquor store he is much more likely to be able to kill anyone that fights back if he has an actual firearm than if he has a bar of soap in his pocket.
This however does not equate to "guns are bad". It means there are alot of people out there that are "bad", ill, confused, etc that are not being given either the help they need or the proper incentive to not break the law. A stronger health system, a better quality of living, and harsher penalties for criminals would be a better answer to the problem then banning guns.
Blaming guns is like blaming a dog attack upon a child on the dogs teeth. Of course you can say "if that dog didn't have teeth he wouldn't have been able to do so much damage" but the real issue should be "why wasn't that dog trained to know better than to attack a child, why wasn't he secured where he could not get to a child, and how do we make sure future dogs do not do it?" You don't go around and pull all the town dogs teeth.
People just hate to deal with the complex problems of life and instead find it much easier to try and come up with scapegoats and simple fixes.
One lesson I do take from this study though, is to make sure and secure your firearms. Only responsible adults should have access. not friends or neighbors if they walk in your home, not small children, not your teen son or daughter you suspect of drug abuse or gang activity, etc.
While there is some truth to what you just said, many of us don't "scramble." Some of us actually research the methodology of the suspect study.Playboypenguin said:
To lump all respondents to this thread as one, is to ignore some of the actual research some have done.
When a researcher assembles data in order to prove a preconceived idealogy, then any such research is suspect. The one example of such that comes to mind is the discredited Bellesiles and his Arming America. An example of the reverse is Lott, who was anti-gun, set out to prove they were dangerous, compiled his data and rethought his premise... Because the data proved otherwise.
Researcher Matthew Miller is of the former type.
The data was "cooked." Yes, guns play a part in Homicides. But when one includes suicides (technically a homicide, but not what most people think of, when the word is used in the vernacular), the dataset becomes skewed.
This is no different than the VPC claim of so many children being victims of gun-violence, when the definition of children includes adults aged 18-26 and the victim includes suicides.
So before I make any responses to such studies, I research them the best I can. I did. I have.
wolverine350
New member
Remember guns don't kill, people do, lay your gun on the table, cuss it scream at it push it around, it wont kill yoou, but give it to the wrong person , yell and scream at him, shove him around and most likely he will shoot you if hes drugged up or likes to shoot people for the hell of it
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I don't think I did that. When I say "I hate people that cannot drive" I don't have to qualify it with "but I do not mind people that drive very well." It is kind of understood.
If someone says "I hate seeing gun owners pick their nose" and you are not someone that picks their nose you can just assume they are not reffering to you.
That is one of the social issues I was referring to also. That is a big pet peeve of mine. I never understand how someone can equate an ill or depressed person not being able to cope and ending their own life with some lowlife shooting his kids, or killing someone for perverse pleasure or personal gain.
