4 ms·

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002934313004440 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002934313004440 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15522849 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8371731 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8485675 How many references will be sufficient evidence?

masonic 7y ago
None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use. 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey." 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC). 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously? So, no, none of those is "evidence" of anything. Now, how many of those were you previously familiar with vs just googling on "gun death home study
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  > None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. Ok. How do you want me to look for the data? > 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use. It's not just a survey. > 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey." Oversampling doesn't invalidate studies. Are you annoyed they acknowledged it? A less rigorous study wouldn't. > 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC). What neutral groups do you think are studying this stuff? The CDC? Well, they can start now. > 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. > > 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously? Could you help me understand what you'd consider "evidence", considering you won't accept articles from peer-reviewed journals. Why does suicide or homicide have to happen "in-home" for it to be valid? I'll provide more references if you can explain exactly what evidence would satisfy you. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time on my part.
  - masonic 7y ago
    How do you want me to look for the data? Thank you for acknowledging that you didn't have actual data you were basing that claim on in the first place.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      Oh I did, its just I never printed it out. It's just so easy to find evidence that gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths and injuries for the owner that I don't really need to save it anywhere. Often when I'm google searching its because I remember the title of something or the general concept. Its something lots of young people do these days rather than printing articles out to scrapbook or saving them to desktop or whatever it is old people do. Let me know what evidence would satisfy you that owning a gun increases the chance of dying via gun. Cheers.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      What? You won't take a pinky swear as proof? Prepare for some kind of snarky defense of a flawed "correlation is causation" argument.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        I'm not entirely sure what they would take as proof.

masonic 7y ago

None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use. 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey." 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC). 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously? So, no, none of those is "evidence" of anything. Now, how many of those were you previously familiar with vs just googling on "gun death home study

tomlockwood 7y ago
> None that you merely googled for. I'm looking for content that actually supports your specific claim. Ok. How do you want me to look for the data? > 1) a survey on firearms-related deaths that doesn't even look at in-home use or defensive vs offensive use. It's not just a survey. > 2) A review of 26-year-old death certificates. Did you read this part? "Blacks, persons less than 35 years of age or older than age 100 years, and persons who died from external causes of homicide, suicide, and unintentional injury were oversampled in this survey." Oversampling doesn't invalidate studies. Are you annoyed they acknowledged it? A less rigorous study wouldn't. > 3) Uses same cooked data as #2, study done by an anti-gun interest group (VPC). What neutral groups do you think are studying this stuff? The CDC? Well, they can start now. > 4) Again uses the same cooked data from 26 years ago. > > 5) A thirty-year-old phone survey that doesn't even examine in-home gun use. Seriously? Could you help me understand what you'd consider "evidence", considering you won't accept articles from peer-reviewed journals. Why does suicide or homicide have to happen "in-home" for it to be valid? I'll provide more references if you can explain exactly what evidence would satisfy you. Otherwise it seems like a waste of time on my part.
- masonic 7y ago
  How do you want me to look for the data? Thank you for acknowledging that you didn't have actual data you were basing that claim on in the first place.
  - tomlockwood 7y ago
    Oh I did, its just I never printed it out. It's just so easy to find evidence that gun ownership correlates with more gun deaths and injuries for the owner that I don't really need to save it anywhere. Often when I'm google searching its because I remember the title of something or the general concept. Its something lots of young people do these days rather than printing articles out to scrapbook or saving them to desktop or whatever it is old people do. Let me know what evidence would satisfy you that owning a gun increases the chance of dying via gun. Cheers.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    What? You won't take a pinky swear as proof? Prepare for some kind of snarky defense of a flawed "correlation is causation" argument.
    - tomlockwood 7y ago
      I'm not entirely sure what they would take as proof.