Statistics-anti gun.

imported post

I 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

imported post

People will believe what they want to believe. Study's will say what they want them to say.

It doesn't say if the households with the guns were the actual victims of homicide. Maybe the house's without guns were the victims because they had no means to protect themselves, including the non gun homicide's.

non–gun-related homicide rates were also elevated in regions where there were more guns

Click to expand...

This tells me some "regions" are just more violent, guns or no guns. Guns are not violent, guns do not commit homicide, people do.

The study was also funded by grants so the 'researchers' have to come up with 'something'. IMO, someone needs to see the raw data from a unbiased source like the FBI or CDC and draw their own conclusions.

Have them watch this news story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

Thanks for helping with our cause.

imported post

This book will help you with your argument. "The Bias Against Guns. Why Almost
Everything you've heard about gun control is wrong.

The author is John R. Lott, Jr.

He uses sound analytics and empirical evidence, not assumptions like this other study that you refered to.

The book will help, I will read it again but I would not be able to give you page references. I will try though.

imported post

You're on the right track, Eoin. Discredit the source. You can spend your life arguing the data. There are multiple levels here.

Can you creditably discredit the source who posted the report to the discussion forum?

You can easily discredit the study itself. Itsays fairly early that it doesn't establish causation.This opens the door to lots of questions: Why would genuine scientists design a study to not establishcausation?Establishing relationships and causation with a high degree of certainty is the whole reason for science. Why did they waste money on a study that didn't answer the question? Did they do the study to decide whether to do a deeper study that does answer the question? Was this somebody just spending a research grant to justify their position? Forward their agenda? You get the idea.

The preceding posters give plenty of ammunition for discrediting the study's methods and data.

One thingnice, reasonable people like usdo toooften is let the anti-gun crowd determine the issue.We do this by responding to their attacks. An effective solution is to turn their argument and then vigorously attack--on yourown issue and force them to stay on topic. Take the moral high ground, instead of the psuedo-moral high ground often used by the anti-'s. Example: "Guns kill children!" Turn it: "How many parents have protected their children with a gun?" In that momentary lull while they shift gears, attack: "Why do youwantparents to be defenseless against someone attacking their child?""Taking away parents' means to defense was the only solution you could think up? How about more education in safe storage and handling for both parents and children?" "Do you hate children?" Keep attacking, keep asking questions thatshow thelimited thinking in their statements. Show their immorality or irresponsibility: "Admit it. You just want everyone to be a good little victim and either die or becrippled for life." "Admit it, you entered a national debate on an issue of crucial importance without bothering to think through on the questions?" "What, you don't have the gravel to defend yourself, so you want everybody else unable?"

You may not change the listener's mind.But eveyone else listening or reading the posts will be exposed to your arguments. Welcome to activism.

imported post

Thanks friends,

That is all very helpful.

I have been using Virginia, Maine and Vermont as compared to Washington DC and the news of the Court's decision in DC is great news, both for the USA and me!!

I've also noticed that since 1960 DC has lost 213,435 residents which is around 33% of the 1960 population.

Seems to be the only major area to have done so, Virginia, Maine and Vermont have substantially increased theirs.

imported post

This is my last post in the debate:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thought I might throw in a bit more.

By 20/05 Washington DC had lost 214,435 residents, almost a third of its 1960 population. Now, we know that the murder rate is the highest in the USA but that can't account for the massive drop, death by natural causes would be a factor but the main factor seems to have been people voting with their feet; "just gettin' th' hell outa there!"

The law banning pistols for self defence was passed in 1976.
The homicide rate for the 16 years prior to the ban was 24.125 per 100,000.
The rate for the 16 years after the ban was 43.456 per 100,000.

Let's just say a 19% increase. Success by any measure?

But that ban is now history and is there anyone happy about it?

'My Fox' based in DC has been running a poll on the Court decision and as at 1615 hrs EDST (Aust.) Sunday 11th March 20/07 it was: 91.80% in favour and only 8.20% against.
The Mayor of Washington DC is running around impersonating Chicken Little and wailing that the world as Washingtonians know it will end.

His citizens fervently hope that it will.

Now could we possibly get back to the original question?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

imported post

This report associates the high rate of gun ownership in the US with the high rate of gun violence.

Point out to your friends that Switzerland has nearly universal gun ownership and almost nonexistent gun violence.

And beware when they start making up stuff about gun ownership in Switzerland. I've heard all the lies, and I know the truth about it. Let me know what they say and I'll set it straight.

imported post

Eoin wrote:

I 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

Click to expand...

I would be very suspicious of any such study that if I understood it correctly would include alcohol and 5 year olds, these studies are to me the same as polls which I do Not Participate in for the same reason, the outcome is determined prior to the release of them, if you want some real stats. On this subject check out the Federal FBI Report on the subject, it isn't great but it isn't biased either.

Click to expand...

[/quote]

imported post

Kelly J,

Could you post a URL for that FBI info.

I looked for it but couldn't find my way through all the other stuff.

imported post

And I bet that if they did a survey of umbrella ownership they would find that the areas with the highest concentrations of household umbrella ownership have correspondingly higher rates of rainfall.

In an interesting study I read about - maybe 15 years ago - the federal government found that of all murder victims in NYC over a period of years more than 75% of the VICTIMS had a history of more than 5 felony arrests. Funny that the anti-gun studies never seem to look at who is actually getting killed in most of the murders that happen - I'd bet that a lot of people wouldn't be very concerned about this 'problem' if they knew the whole truth.

This is not to say that there are no innocent victims, just that there are a lot more people who just picked a bad way to live and continued until they stopped living.

imported post

Here's some more info directly on point:

Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries` crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

• A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")
  
• Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)
  
• U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime: .....

Read the rest at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

imported post

More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976.[suP]1[/suP] (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.[suP]2[/suP]) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately-owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million,[suP]3[/suP] and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates.[suP]4[/suP]

Read more at http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18

imported post

Eoin wrote:

Kelly J,

Could you post a URL for that FBI info.

I looked for it but couldn't find my way through all the other stuff.

Click to expand...

I took a quick scan and came up with this site, if it doesn't answer your questions let me know and I will try to pin it down a bit more.



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/index.html

imported post

Again thanks . Thanks a million.

Eoin.

imported post

You are Quite Welcome.

imported post

I wanted to say a couple of things...

An armed society is a polite society.

These studies are being done by FBI, CDC, DOJ, etc... If the study were to find that more guns equals less crime, would the study be published? If the liberals controlled congress, and found out the results of the fact finding study were in the favor of pro gun people would they cut the funding? Obviously if the study isn't benefiting their cause, it must be destroyed- evidence must be repressed! Just forget about the FOIA, lets just hide the true facts of what happens when citizens have guns.Letscontinue the process in whichthe criminals to be glorified in the media for their misuseoffirearms, and in doing so encourage more of them to do such acts for it will get their name on the front page of the news paper, resulting in major street cred and only leading to their ultimate release back into society!

If someone was to do an investigation and find this to be the case, what is the punishment that would result of it? Nothing?

imported post

It's simple!

Gun Control = Unarmed Citizens

Unarmed Citizens= Fearful Citizens

Keep the population afraid, provide the only answer to the problem you created, then come in as the hero all the while profiting from it! Sheer genius. Just have to keep the citizenry dumb and confuse the situation with law after law after law.

Knowledge conquers fear andwhen the citizens KNOW the law and bear arms as is their right against the tyranny....the answer that remains can only be to outlaw the guns.

There is GREAT money to be made in fear....just look at the insurance industry!

America is dying.....I'm buying guns!

imported post

BobCav wrote:

It's simple!

Gun Control = Unarmed Citizens

Unarmed Citizens= Fearful Citizens

Keep the population afraid, provide the only answer to the problem you created, then come in as the hero all the while profiting from it! Sheer genius. Just have to keep the citizenry dumb and confuse the situation with law after law after law.

Knowledge conquers fear andwhen the citizens KNOW the law and bear arms as is their right against the tyranny....the answer that remains can only be to outlaw the guns.

There is GREAT money to be made in fear....just look at the insurance industry!

America is dying.....I'm buying guns!

Click to expand...

Great summary, BobCav. It quickly undermines every gun control advocate from the least active sheeple to the uppermost politician. I imagine it could be very effective in forums like Eoin encountered. Load this one in the top of your magazine as the next letter to the editor.

imported post

Eoin wrote:

I 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

Click to expand...

I recommend http://www.gunfacts.info/as a source of several good pro-gun arguments.

The study you quoted in the message above refutes itself:

"Our study did not provide information about causation. One approach to evaluating causal direction is to use a lagged measure of the key independent variable. Our finding that a lagged measure of firearm ownership yielded results similar to results obtained with contemporaneous ownership and homicide measures is consistent with higher gun ownership rates leading to higher homicide rates. However, this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue, in part because cross-sectional patterns of gun ownership rates across the United States are so stable over time."