How many felons do you know that have guns. They are including criminals and probably doing other things to bias the data. Its easy to have biased sample data; as long as they don't try hard for good data, it will probably look how they want.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Heavy drinking linked to owning firearms?
- Thread starter carsontech
- Start date
How many felons do you know that have guns. They are including criminals and probably doing other things to bias the data. Its easy to have biased sample data; as long as they don't try hard for good data, it will probably look how they want.
ncwabbit
Regular Member
statistics...
Interesting to note the author, Dr G J Wintemute, Director, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, of the referenced study has a long publishing history (nine articles) starting in 1998 of the medical journal Injury Prevention and a review of the journalistic abstracts show his work is anti gun: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/
I am unable to ascertain if Injury Prevention uses peer reviewed articles prior to publishing material. And the OP cite w/the original information UC Davis seems to take some poetic license as it mentions OC/CC while the abstract of Dr. Wintemut’s article doesn’t say a word about these methodologies but rather a blanket statement: “Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away.”
While the article states the author used a database of 15K responders to reach his conclusion, it is interesting to note the CDC’s BBRFSS telephonic questionnaire only has 5 questions relating to alcohol and these questions are only asked every two years and my research did not turn up any specific questions regarding firearms.
So given this author’s self serving proclivity to write about firearms in a negative way in this journal using suspect statistical data I must conclude Twain’s often used quote is applicable:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
wabbit
Interesting to note the author, Dr G J Wintemute, Director, Violence Prevention Research Program, University of California, of the referenced study has a long publishing history (nine articles) starting in 1998 of the medical journal Injury Prevention and a review of the journalistic abstracts show his work is anti gun: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/
I am unable to ascertain if Injury Prevention uses peer reviewed articles prior to publishing material. And the OP cite w/the original information UC Davis seems to take some poetic license as it mentions OC/CC while the abstract of Dr. Wintemut’s article doesn’t say a word about these methodologies but rather a blanket statement: “Heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviours such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away.”
While the article states the author used a database of 15K responders to reach his conclusion, it is interesting to note the CDC’s BBRFSS telephonic questionnaire only has 5 questions relating to alcohol and these questions are only asked every two years and my research did not turn up any specific questions regarding firearms.
So given this author’s self serving proclivity to write about firearms in a negative way in this journal using suspect statistical data I must conclude Twain’s often used quote is applicable:
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
wabbit
Aknazer
Regular Member
So I went to the "injury prevention" website and found an article that says there's likely a causation of drinking non-diet soda and violence found here. How about rather than thinking there's a causation effect they think about a correlation between those who prefer diet soda and their attitudes that make them less likely to perform violence. With statements like that how can they claim to be "peer reviewed" unless by "peer" they mean other like-minded people.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I'm gonna go have a beer and shoot someone.
Really?
Really?
since9
Campaign Veteran
I'll deal with the quote first, then tackle the rather good comments by y'all.
Yes, it is ridiculous. Here's why:
[quto]["Gun owners who carry concealed weapons or have confronted another person with a gun are more than twice as likely to drink heavily as people who do not own guns, according to a study by UC Davis researchers.[/quote]
Back when I dated a gal who attended UC Davis, when I was stationed in Sacramento, I met two professors from UC Davis. Both were jerks. Both were drinking. Both were at a bar. Both were in California. By gross statistical negligence I could conclude California professors who drink are jerks. That would, however, be an undeserved slam on my first profession which heavily involved the wonderful science of statistics, so I won't defame the practice of statistics by making such a ridiculous claim, particularly as I would have to violate many of the rigorous principles of statistics to do so.
Correlation, not causation.
Correlation, not causation.
Exactly.
The correlation is quite real. I would say it's a ridiculous conclusion. The article claimed, Wintemute is "one of the world’s foremost experts on gun-related violence." By whose standards? His? UC Davis'? His similarly statistically inept peers?
The linked article refers to Wintemute's article: "The article suggests several reasons why dangerous behavior involving alcohol and firearms might be linked." Yes, Wintemute's article does suggest that. The statistics, however, DO NOT. Wintemute has committed the grievous sin of inserting his own pre-conceived notions into the data. BAD JU-JU.
"“New and more comprehensive research is needed, since legislation authorizing the public carrying of loaded and concealed firearms has become almost universal in the United States,” said Wintemute."
No. What appears to be happening is that Wintemute is looking for a government grant to carry out ridiculously unnecessary research aimed at two things: 1) Inventing false "evidence" he can use as an anti-2A person to wrongfully mislead legislators; 2) Lining his pockets with your hard-earned tax dollars.
To that end, I ask you all to draft good, solid letters and send them to officials at UC Davis, the California Legislature, and your federal Congressmen, informing them just how out to lunch Wintemute's conclusions really are and asking them to please NOT waste our hard-earned tax dollars on such drivel.
"According to a 2004 study done by the Harvard School of Public Health, there are 260 to 300 million guns in civilian hands in the United States. The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center estimates that 32 percent of American households contain firearms."
It's closer to 51%, but what the hay - It's Chicago, and it's their "Opinion," so like ********, they have one too, and it stinks.
"Four states allow concealed guns in bars, provided the armed person does not consume alcohol which, noted Wintemute, seems difficult to enforce because the weapons are, by definition, concealed."
This is flat out incorrect. If they can't get well-known, easily-researched facts like this correct, even the raw data in the rest of the article becomes suspect. But oh! The article was written by Charles Casey, whose e-mail is @ucdmc.ucdavis.edu! Probably in the same pin-headed "UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program." How much you want to bet these two tried to get a journalist to write it, but no self-respecting journalist (even by today's shoddy standards) would touch it?
Partly true. I spotted more than half a dozen logical fallacies in the article. The one that bobs to the surface is Denying a Conjunct (Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism). Put simply, it goes along these lines: "It's never both sunny and overcast. It's not sunny, therefore, it's overcast."
Well no, it could simply be nighttime!
These are the sorts of mistakes made by non-statisticians (doctors are infamous for jumping to these conclusions) who enter the scene with pre-conceived notions and a noticeable lack of statistical skill. I can spot it because I studied statistics diligentyly, took a very difficult board exam and became a registered statistician. Unfortunately, such level of competence is not required for most PhD programs.
That quite true fact has apparently escaped Wintemute's research, along with dozens of other thought-provoking facts.
In all likelihood, the real correlation is that those who live in higher crime areas are more likely to carry firearms on a regular basis, and because they live in higher crime areas, are more likely to get into a scuffle. In both cases, it's the crime rate that drives (causes) both factors, not the gun ownership. We do know, for a fact, that as gun ownership goes up and gun laws are taken off the books, crime goes DOWN. Wintemute seems to have overlooked this little tidbit, as well.
I agree with your point 100%, Daylen!
Bottom line, Wintemute's comments are a joke. The entire article by Charles Casey is a joke. They're ignore other valid, pertinent data, and are a gross violation of sound statistical methods and principles.
I'll be writing the University on this matter, along with the California and U.S. legislators.
Yes, it is ridiculous. Here's why:
[quto]["Gun owners who carry concealed weapons or have confronted another person with a gun are more than twice as likely to drink heavily as people who do not own guns, according to a study by UC Davis researchers.[/quote]
Back when I dated a gal who attended UC Davis, when I was stationed in Sacramento, I met two professors from UC Davis. Both were jerks. Both were drinking. Both were at a bar. Both were in California. By gross statistical negligence I could conclude California professors who drink are jerks. That would, however, be an undeserved slam on my first profession which heavily involved the wonderful science of statistics, so I won't defame the practice of statistics by making such a ridiculous claim, particularly as I would have to violate many of the rigorous principles of statistics to do so.
Correlation, not causation.
Correlation, not causation.
Exactly.
The correlation is quite real. I would say it's a ridiculous conclusion. The article claimed, Wintemute is "one of the world’s foremost experts on gun-related violence." By whose standards? His? UC Davis'? His similarly statistically inept peers?
The linked article refers to Wintemute's article: "The article suggests several reasons why dangerous behavior involving alcohol and firearms might be linked." Yes, Wintemute's article does suggest that. The statistics, however, DO NOT. Wintemute has committed the grievous sin of inserting his own pre-conceived notions into the data. BAD JU-JU.
"“New and more comprehensive research is needed, since legislation authorizing the public carrying of loaded and concealed firearms has become almost universal in the United States,” said Wintemute."
No. What appears to be happening is that Wintemute is looking for a government grant to carry out ridiculously unnecessary research aimed at two things: 1) Inventing false "evidence" he can use as an anti-2A person to wrongfully mislead legislators; 2) Lining his pockets with your hard-earned tax dollars.
To that end, I ask you all to draft good, solid letters and send them to officials at UC Davis, the California Legislature, and your federal Congressmen, informing them just how out to lunch Wintemute's conclusions really are and asking them to please NOT waste our hard-earned tax dollars on such drivel.
"According to a 2004 study done by the Harvard School of Public Health, there are 260 to 300 million guns in civilian hands in the United States. The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center estimates that 32 percent of American households contain firearms."
It's closer to 51%, but what the hay - It's Chicago, and it's their "Opinion," so like ********, they have one too, and it stinks.
"Four states allow concealed guns in bars, provided the armed person does not consume alcohol which, noted Wintemute, seems difficult to enforce because the weapons are, by definition, concealed."
This is flat out incorrect. If they can't get well-known, easily-researched facts like this correct, even the raw data in the rest of the article becomes suspect. But oh! The article was written by Charles Casey, whose e-mail is @ucdmc.ucdavis.edu! Probably in the same pin-headed "UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program." How much you want to bet these two tried to get a journalist to write it, but no self-respecting journalist (even by today's shoddy standards) would touch it?
Partly true. I spotted more than half a dozen logical fallacies in the article. The one that bobs to the surface is Denying a Conjunct (Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism). Put simply, it goes along these lines: "It's never both sunny and overcast. It's not sunny, therefore, it's overcast."
Well no, it could simply be nighttime!
These are the sorts of mistakes made by non-statisticians (doctors are infamous for jumping to these conclusions) who enter the scene with pre-conceived notions and a noticeable lack of statistical skill. I can spot it because I studied statistics diligentyly, took a very difficult board exam and became a registered statistician. Unfortunately, such level of competence is not required for most PhD programs.
That quite true fact has apparently escaped Wintemute's research, along with dozens of other thought-provoking facts.
In all likelihood, the real correlation is that those who live in higher crime areas are more likely to carry firearms on a regular basis, and because they live in higher crime areas, are more likely to get into a scuffle. In both cases, it's the crime rate that drives (causes) both factors, not the gun ownership. We do know, for a fact, that as gun ownership goes up and gun laws are taken off the books, crime goes DOWN. Wintemute seems to have overlooked this little tidbit, as well.
I agree with your point 100%, Daylen!
Bottom line, Wintemute's comments are a joke. The entire article by Charles Casey is a joke. They're ignore other valid, pertinent data, and are a gross violation of sound statistical methods and principles.
I'll be writing the University on this matter, along with the California and U.S. legislators.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
XX - I don't always carry a Firearm, but when I do, I make sure I'm wasted and shoot up the place...
carsontech
Activist Member
I normally only begin to open fire if/when someone offers me a domestic "beer" or one of those foo-foo umbrella-tipped girlie drinks...
Good idea. Make sure you use enough postage, they will just delete your e-mails.
Curtis C
Regular Member
well hell fire, looks like i need to catch up on lost time them. i drink once maybe twice a year. gonna get me a few jugs of shine who whats to join me?
Curtis C
Regular Member
no tobacco, but i do wear cammo when there is nothing else clean.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I was wondering if anyone would catch the "XX" part and read it in his voice...
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
For shame! I only wear other stuff when the camo isn't clean...
Steeler-gal
Regular Member
I've seen several deals on Groupon lately that we're actually called "Shooting & drinking outing." I think the drinking (wine tasting usually) is after the shoot but I always cringe when I see these come up.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Oh, SG, it's more comedy than anything else. Let the parade rain on.
carsontech
Activist Member
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Right-click, save. Upload to Blog. Repost EVERYWHERE.
sraacke
Regular Member
Well I guess I would be throwing off the % in the study because I Open Carry regularly and keep a gun within reach at all times and I havn't drank any alcohol (beer or otherwise) in 20 years.