Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Peepelonia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Hahahahahah! Have you ever read New Scientist?

To answer your question, nope it was restricted to civilians. New Scientist as the name suggest is a Science mag, it holds (as far as I can tell) no particular political persuasion, and deals only with Science and emprical facts, and scientific theory.

The age old 'assult the source' just is not the right line to take about this one.

In all fairness though the article made no mention of correlation nor causation except to say that it MAY be that habitual gun carrriers act differantly than none gun carriers in situations of danger, that the act of carrying a gun MAY make one braver and more likely to get involved, rather than say, hand over the wallet, or run away.

Yes this seems more opinion than fact, but I think that there may we be something in it.

[Skeptikosia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

[KaIashnikov]

Packing heat to a kids soccer practice is not, under any conceivable set of circumstances, responsible gun ownership. Unless, of course, Deepcrows infest the soccer field.

I carry my M9 on person where ever I go. Except the beach, I put it in the cooler when I do. I seldom go to the beach.

[Peepelonia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

[Neu California]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

[Katganistan]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

Why do you assume he murdered her and killed himself? Is it not as likely she murdered him and killed herself? The article linked to doesn't specify who shot whom.

[Mando-ade]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

Why do you assume he murdered her and killed himself? Is it not as likely she murdered him and killed herself? The article linked to doesn't specify who shot whom.

The article said she was shot dead along side her husband in an appearanr murder/suicide. IDK, it seems that it's saying she was killed first, thus was the one murdered.

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Excellent

[Parthenon]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

Why do you assume he murdered her and killed himself? Is it not as likely she murdered him and killed herself? The article linked to doesn't specify who shot whom.

LEBANON, Pa.— A soccer mom who was thrust into the national gun-rights debate after taking a loaded pistol to youth sports events was killed by her husband in a shooting witnessed online by her video chat partner, authorities said Friday.
http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr ... hot_dead/1

[Skeptikosia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

[Unchecked Expansion]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

Show a counter example. This got into a peer reviewed scientific journal. Where is your evidence that gun owners are less likely to be shot?

[Skeptikosia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

Show a counter example. This got into a peer reviewed scientific journal. Where is your evidence that gun owners are less likely to be shot?

False dichotomy and also not what I asserted.

[Unchecked Expansion]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

Show a counter example. This got into a peer reviewed scientific journal. Where is your evidence that gun owners are less likely to be shot?

False dichotomy and also not what I asserted.

You assert that a peer reviewed scientific investigation came to a false or misleading conclusion.

[Skeptikosia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

Show a counter example. This got into a peer reviewed scientific journal. Where is your evidence that gun owners are less likely to be shot?

False dichotomy and also not what I asserted.

You assert that a peer reviewed scientific investigation came to a false or misleading conclusion.

I assert that their research used a cherry picked sample. The results of such a study will directly represent the data. The conclusion in such a case is predetermined.

Have you read the actual study or just what was presented on the New Scientist web site?

[CanuckHeaven]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Oh I remember that article now. It's a handpicked sample in one of the shittiest places in America. Of course it's going to have a slanted perspective.

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood.

Do you really think there was only 667 shootings in Filthedelphia in two and half years?

It doesn't say that there were ONLY 667 shootings in Philadelphia.....it says:

So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity.

There is a difference.

[CanuckHeaven]

I assert that their research used a cherry picked sample.

Asserting your opinion does not make it fact. Your job is to prove your assertion.

[The Norse Hordes]

I assert that their research used a cherry picked sample.

Asserting your opinion does not make it fact. Your job is to prove your assertion.

This comment is hilarious.

[CanuckHeaven]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Even more interesting:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45

[Seperates]

Were does it show that her owning a gun caused her husband to shoot and kill her and then kill himself?

Why do you assume he murdered her and killed himself? Is it not as likely she murdered him and killed herself? The article linked to doesn't specify who shot whom.

I was reading through all of this and i was just thinking that when i saw your post...
This age old debate will never be finished... ive seen the same points voiced and contradicted 13 times ... and the freaking definition of phycological insanity is doing the same thing over and over again thinking that something different will happen if you do it again ... I therefore declare this debate insane!!!!

[Buxtahatche]

Here is a classic example of what happens when a society promotes the "gun culture".

Yeah... sure.
That's bullshit.
According to YOUR thinking, sir, then we should ban all sharp objects and pad the pointy edges of the world.

Loose the nanny mentality and get into reality... please.

[Skeptikosia]

I assert that their research used a cherry picked sample.

Asserting your opinion does not make it fact. Your job is to prove your assertion.

I'm not asserting a fact, I'm stating an opinion based on experience and a knowledge of the anti-gun agenda.

They made the assertion. But I'm not going to pay good money to look at the actual publication.

[Skeptikosia]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Even more interesting:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45

It's only interesting if you don't know anything about sampling bias.

I'd like to see them try the same test out in Minnesota.

[CanuckHeaven]

Here is a classic example of what happens when a society promotes the "gun culture".

Yeah... sure.
That's bullshit.

It may be bullshit to you but I find the reality overwhelming.

According to YOUR thinking, sir, then we should ban all sharp objects and pad the pointy edges of the world.

I am not suggesting anything of the kind.

[Loose the nanny mentality and get into reality... please.

The reality is that in the US there are too guns ending up in the wrong hands and everything possible should be done to change that "reality"!!!

[Phenia]

Here is a classic example of what happens when a society promotes the "gun culture".

Yeah... sure.
That's bullshit.
According to YOUR thinking, sir, then we should ban all sharp objects and pad the pointy edges of the world.

Loose the nanny mentality and get into reality... please.

Speaking of reality, all he was talking about was the promotion of gun culture -- this bullshit strawman about banning sharp objects and having a nanny state is just that, a strawman fallacy.

Perhaps you'd do well to reply to what people say and not what you fantasize that they are thinking.

[CanuckHeaven]

I assert that their research used a cherry picked sample.

Asserting your opinion does not make it fact. Your job is to prove your assertion.

I'm not asserting a fact, I'm stating an opinion based on experience and a knowledge of the anti-gun agenda.

They made the assertion. But I'm not going to pay good money to look at the actual publication.

Therefore your "opinion" is noted but your assertion is meaningless unless you can provide proof.