4 ms·

So there may be valid arguments in here, but you're using a bunch of flawed logic in the way you've presented them here: > I note that any incident that involv

So there may be valid arguments in here, but you're using a bunch of flawed logic in the way you've presented them here: > I note that any incident that involves a gun is assumed to be caused by the gun, as though no unarmed person ever were assaulted or committed suicide. That tells me everything I need to know about how conscientious the research is. Yes, they're looking at correlation rather than causation, but looking at real world data that's usually your only option. Dismissing the research on as not 'conscientious' on that basis seems a little weak, perhaps you'd care to support it some? > If these researchers cared about public health they would have helped us end the damned drug war a decade ago. As if. This is entirely fallacious... the world doesn't conform to your "if X really cared about Y they would have done Z" narrative. By that same argument no president, no congress, and nobody who approves of the war on drugs, cares about human life. Edit: If you prefer not to talk about suicide; how about self-defence... in 2014 (according to FBI data) there were 229 cases (total) where a criminal was justifiably killed by a civilian [1]. To put that in perspective there were 281 mass shootings in 2014... 1,759 people were killed by firearms during arguments [2]... and 1,601 injured in gun-related accidents. Similarly this study [3] found that carrying a gun increased your chance of being shot by a factor of 4.5. The whole "armed citizens don't need police" thing may actually be fair... but you're much more likely to need an ambulance. [1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_15_justifiable_homicide_by_weapon_private_citizen_2010-2014.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/... [2] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2014.xls https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/... [3] http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099?journalCode=ajph http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2008.1...

jessaustin 11y ago
So there may be valid arguments in here... Gee, thanks! Ah yes, we must look under the lamppost. Sure, that's a pressing concern for "professional" "researchers" who must write grants somehow, but that doesn't oblige the rest of us to believe their tenuous constructed bullshit. Correlation might make sense, ceteris paribus, but they're comparing USA to nations of vastly different sizes, locations, and histories. Rather than, say, nations of similar sizes, locations, and histories. We are a high-population colonized nation of the Americas. We're not the only one, but we are the only one that shows up in this "research". By that same argument... Indeed. Normal voters have ignorance as an excuse (although that's less tenable as time passes) but every single legislator and drug warrior and surely every social scientist eventually figures out what's going on. Cops still don't join LEAP until they get their pension. Researchers continue to write grants that get funded rather than ask questions that data can possibly answer.
jessaustin 11y ago
I just noticed the references in your edit. About that last paper: I note that two of the four cites at your link are about the poor methodology used in the paper. Indeed reading the abstract is enough to reveal that no attempt was made to track a carefully randomized population, which is the only statistically valid way to conduct research like this. (Apparently it's not the only way to get a grant.) Rather, they selected a bunch of young dudes who had already been shot and then designated a "control" of people of all ages and genders to which to compare them. Then they made some "adjustments". As if GSW victims aren't more likely to be carrying already, do to their personal risk assessments. Good grief.

jessaustin 11y ago

So there may be valid arguments in here... Gee, thanks! Ah yes, we must look under the lamppost. Sure, that's a pressing concern for "professional" "researchers" who must write grants somehow, but that doesn't oblige the rest of us to believe their tenuous constructed bullshit. Correlation might make sense, ceteris paribus, but they're comparing USA to nations of vastly different sizes, locations, and histories. Rather than, say, nations of similar sizes, locations, and histories. We are a high-population colonized nation of the Americas. We're not the only one, but we are the only one that shows up in this "research". By that same argument... Indeed. Normal voters have ignorance as an excuse (although that's less tenable as time passes) but every single legislator and drug warrior and surely every social scientist eventually figures out what's going on. Cops still don't join LEAP until they get their pension. Researchers continue to write grants that get funded rather than ask questions that data can possibly answer.

jessaustin 11y ago

I just noticed the references in your edit. About that last paper: I note that two of the four cites at your link are about the poor methodology used in the paper. Indeed reading the abstract is enough to reveal that no attempt was made to track a carefully randomized population, which is the only statistically valid way to conduct research like this. (Apparently it's not the only way to get a grant.) Rather, they selected a bunch of young dudes who had already been shot and then designated a "control" of people of all ages and genders to which to compare them. Then they made some "adjustments". As if GSW victims aren't more likely to be carrying already, do to their personal risk assessments. Good grief.