Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Kowani]

The datasets for the both use the NCVS, which is …sort of self-reported.
It’s one of the most accurate sources we have.

You know Kowani. I have a more accurate way of tracking shootings in a small radius... At night, just go outside here in down town St. Louis and count the gun shots...

Convenience samples are statistically terrible.

Can it be agreed that an abnormal amount of people die by guns in America, cuz that’s the problem that I wanted to solve ...

And softballing that around 80% of those deaths happen in the same areas of the country... locations controlled by people who think like you.

Most liberal states tend to have higher population, though. Of course they’d have more absolute numbers. However, if you look at the gun murder rate per 100,000, the only ones in the red are red states of which there are 11 (of the 13 total.), with the exception of DC and Maryland.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

You know Kowani. I have a more accurate way of tracking shootings in a small radius... At night, just go outside here in down town St. Louis and count the gun shots...

Convenience samples are statistically terrible.

And softballing that around 80% of those deaths happen in the same areas of the country... locations controlled by people who think like you.

Most liberal states tend to have higher population, though. Of course they’d have more absolute numbers. However, if you look at the gun murder rate per 100,000, the only ones in the red are red states of which there are 11 (of the 13 total.), with the exception of DC and Maryland.

Finally sources, now for the counter sources ...

[Kowani]

Convenience samples are statistically terrible.



Most liberal states tend to have higher population, though. Of course they’d have more absolute numbers. However, if you look at the gun murder rate per 100,000, the only ones in the red are red states of which there are 11 (of the 13 total.), with the exception of DC and Maryland.

Finally sources, now for the counter sources ...

I cited sources last page.

It's almost as if asshats break into homes or attempt to rape people or pull a knife on people while they're walking at night, and someone has to defend themselves.

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

Finally sources, now for the counter sources ...

I cited sources last page.

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

lol

Those glasses are shaded with black paint

[Telconi]

By Australia I mean they are like us a lot, but they have a ban on most guns, and people die a lot less by guns. I don’t think guns should be removed, but it is an example, that less guns = less death. Also keep in mind, nobody profits from stopping guns. Nobody would spend money on that and expect to make money. But there is profit in selling guns... so keep in mind that interest.


“NRA tv”

I'm sure you can somehow cite a noticable decrease in death rates from fewer guns.

[Kowani]

By Australia I mean they are like us a lot, but they have a ban on most guns, and people die a lot less by guns. I don’t think guns should be removed, but it is an example, that less guns = less death. Also keep in mind, nobody profits from stopping guns. Nobody would spend money on that and expect to make money. But there is profit in selling guns... so keep in mind that interest.


“NRA tv”

I'm sure you can somehow cite a noticable decrease in death rates from fewer guns.

It works when you prevent domestic abusers from accessing firearms-a 17% decrease. The relationship between firearms and domestic abuse is well understood and documented.

Most large scale studies, have been inconclusive, or poorly done.

[Telconi]

I'm sure you can somehow cite a noticable decrease in death rates from fewer guns.

It works when you prevent domestic abusers from accessing firearms-a 17% decrease. The relationship between firearms and domestic abuse is well understood and documented.

Most large scale studies, have been inconclusive, or poorly done.

And how many people are killed via domestic abuse on the whole?

I found it, 2,237 out of 2,813,503, I wouldn't generally consider a reduction of deaths equal to one out of every 7400 or so, to be significant.

Numbers are from 2017, most recent I could find.

[Licana]

It's almost as if asshats break into homes or attempt to rape people or pull a knife on people while they're walking at night, and someone has to defend themselves.

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

The NCVS, through its methodology, is almost certainly underreporting self defense instances, and that's something I know has been brought up repeatedly in these threads. Regardless, even if we use the NCVS's number of approx 65k instances of self defense with a firearm annually, it is still almost 6x the number of annual firearms homicides, 4.5x the number of homicides in general, 2x the number of firearms deaths, and about 0.88x the number of nonfatal injuries from firearms. That 65k number is hardly a condemnation of firearms self defense.

Edit: Also, pro-gun control articles from David Hemenway should be met with at least the same scrutiny as pro-gun rights articles from Gary Kleck.

[Washington Resistance Army]

By Australia I mean they are like us a lot, but they have a ban on most guns, and people die a lot less by guns. I don’t think guns should be removed, but it is an example, that less guns = less death. Also keep in mind, nobody profits from stopping guns. Nobody would spend money on that and expect to make money. But there is profit in selling guns... so keep in mind that interest.


“NRA tv”

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=429986&p=33491590#p33491590

Australia's gun laws in the 90's by and large had no significant impact.

[Kowani]

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

The NCVS, through its methodology, is almost certainly underreporting self defense instances,

Well...there’s always technically the possibility, it’s there with every survey, but it’s not really plausible. Or rather, plausible enough to be much more than a rounding error. It’s does miss an entire demographic, the homeless, who are much more likely to be victimized, and much less likely to have guns to use in self defense.

and that's something I know has been brought up repeatedly in these threads. Regardless, even if we use the NCVS's number of approx 65k instances of self defense with a firearm annually, it is still almost 6x the number of annual firearms homicides, 4.5x the number of homicides in general, 2x the number of firearms deaths, and about 0.88x the number of nonfatal injuries from firearms.

It would do you well to remember that the NCVS data that cites 65,000 is from several decades ago. In that same time period, the actual number of crimes far exceeded the number of defensive gun uses. “The key estimates McDowall and Wiersema presented were that between 1987 and 1990 there were some 260,000 incidents of defensive gun use in the United States, roughly 65,000 per year. Although big numbers, they pale by comparison with the total number of crimes reported during the same period—guns were used defensively in fewer than one in 500 victimizations reported in the NCVS; moreover, criminal offenders were armed about 10 times more often than their victims. These are just the sort of statistics dear to gun control advocates. McDowall and Wiersema conclude that “criminals face little threat from armed citizens””

That 65k number is hardly a condemnation of firearms self defense.

Perhaps not on its own (although take into account the time differences.) However, it is well noted that the effectiveness of using guns in self defense is…pretty much nonexistent. Maybe against burglary, sure, although they’re useless in most other cases, but that’s not enough to justify the negative effects of their wide proliferation.

Edit: Also, pro-gun control articles from David Hemenway should be met with at least the same scrutiny as pro-gun rights articles from Gary Kleck.

Oh, sure. Scrutinize all you like. Both of them have earned it.

[Grinning Dragon]

The issue with National Crime Victimization Survey is the fact that responses to National Crime Victimization Survey has been declining steadily as the crime rate has also slowed over the years and now may not be a true reflection of crime in the US. Over the years the budget has been cut, 12% in 1996, 4% in 2002, 16% in 2006 and 14% in 2007, which leads to a very small sample rate which will cause the error rate to increase.
The National Crime Victimization Survey uses a limited population, sampling errors because of the 6 month frame of reference, series of victimization only count as one incident, another issue deals with what is known as "telescoping" in which a respondent includes information that is older than that of the evaluation period.

As to academia papers on firearms, most of these are funded by the midget nazi, bloomberg and should be taking with a very large grain of salt, since it is funded by someone who a distaste for anything 2nd Amendment. I'm currently reading a book "America, Guns, and Freedom" by Miguel A. Faria, he goes into detail that most of the funded academia reports start out with a preconceived outcome and the data is massaged to fit the predetermined outcome and to promote social engineering. This was something he noticed when he worked at the CDC(2002 - 2004) on the grant review committee.

As to wikipedia, wikipedia isn't a valid source at anytime, kind of interesting that wikipedia isn't allowed to used as a source in academia, why should we accept it in every day parlance?

[Licana]

Well...there’s always technically the possibility, it’s there with every survey, but it’s not really plausible. Or rather, plausible enough to be much more than a rounding error. It’s does miss an entire demographic, the homeless, who are much more likely to be victimized, and much less likely to have guns to use in self defense.

It's not so much that it fails to account for the homeless, but more that its methodology is such that it would not ask about defensive gun use unless certain qualifiers are met beforehand. It's a measure that will ensure at least a slight underestimation through exclusion.

It would do you well to remember that the NCVS data that cites 65,000 is from several decades ago. In that same time period, the actual number of crimes far exceeded the number of defensive gun uses.

Okay, so instead of 4.5x the general homicide rate it would be 2.77x (in the context of approx 24k homicides in 1990) and about 3.5x the firearms homicide rate (18.25k in 1993). The margin is less massive, but it's still hardly a condemnation of self defense.

In that same time period, the actual number of crimes far exceeded the number of defensive gun uses.

Okay? I'm sure the actual number of crimes today far exceeds the number of defensive gun usages, so I don't know what the point of bringing this up is. I don't think anyone here is going to even try to argue that DGUs are or ever were more prevalent than crime itself.

Perhaps not on its own (although take into account the time differences.) However, it is well noted that the effectiveness of using guns in self defense is…pretty much nonexistent

Maybe well noted by people like Hemenway, sure.

but that’s not enough to justify the negative effects of their wide proliferation.

...such as? I mean the proliferation of firearms has been going on for a while in the US, there's been a general loosening of anti-gun laws (most prominently the sun-setting of the 94 AW ban, DC v Heller, MacDonnald v Chicago, and the upcoming SC hearing regarding NYCs transportation laws) and a significant expansion of right to carry along the state level. What negative effects have these things brought about? It hasn't been increased criminality, firearms homicide. I'll give you firearms death, if you feel like restricting the individual rights of hundreds of millions of people to stop a tiny portion of said people from checking out of life is a righteous cause.

Edit: As a bonus, I hunted down the 2007-2011 NCVS survey cited in one of your previous articles. It showed 235k instances of DGUs over this period, or about 47k annually. Being generous and using the 2007 FBI homicide chart, that's still 4.6x the number of firearms homicide, 3.1x the number of homicides in general, and 1.5x the number total firearms deaths (as per this source). I'm still going to go ahead and say "worth."

[Aclion]

mean, by the nature of DGU crime will always be more prevalent, since every DGU involves a crime,but not every crime results in a DGU.

[Kowani]

The issue with National Crime Victimization Survey is the fact that responses to National Crime Victimization Survey has been declining steadily as the crime rate has also slowed over the years and now may not be a true reflection of crime in the US. Over the years the budget has been cut, 12% in 1996, 4% in 2002, 16% in 2006 and 14% in 2007, which leads to a very small sample rate which will cause the error rate to increase.

I’m sorry, are those percentages cuts? Because I can’t find anything to support that.

The National Crime Victimization Survey uses a limited population,

Well, that’s both a tautology and incorrect. In statistics, a population is everyone related to the subject in question. (Everyone in the US-so, tautologically limited, since the number of people is limited, the population must be as well). What is actually used is a limited sample, which is everyone questioned by the survey. However, the sample size is large (49,000 households) and nationally representative. Thus, the size of the sample isn’t as important as you think. Samples should neither be small nor overly-large.

sampling errors because of the 6 month frame of reference,

Well, no. This actually helps to lessen statistical errors, since human memory is…notoriously bad. This makes anything prior to that timeframe extremely unreliable. Because households remain in the program for 3 years, contradictory testimony is found, and a much larger timeline is covered more reliably.

series of victimization only count as one incident,

This used to be a legitimate complaint, but there was a policy change: Beginning in 2011, BJS stopped deleting these outliers. (Outliers being the statistical result of grouping series of victimization into one incident.Instead, reported series victimizations are now directly included in the estimates with no additional adjustment unless more than 10 victimizations are reported in one series. Reported values greater than 10 are truncated to the value of 10. BJS has made the change retroactively back to 1993 in its online NCVS database.

another issue deals with what is known as "telescoping" in which a respondent includes information that is older than what the evaluation period.

Telescoped events which actually occurred prior to the reference period can be minimized at the time of the first interview by a technique known as bounding. Bounding is achieved by comparing incidents reported in an interview with incidents reported in a previous interview and deleting duplicate incidents that were reported in the current reference period. In the NCVS designs, each visit to a household is used to bound the next one by comparing reports in the current interview with those given six months prior. When a report appears to be a duplicate, the respondent is reminded of the earlier report and asked if the new report represents the incident previously mentioned or if it is different. The first interview at a household entering the sample is unbounded, and data collected at these interviews are not included in NCVS estimates. However, if a household in sample moves and another moves into that address, the first interview with the replacement household is unbounded but is included in NCVS estimates.

As to academia papers on firearms, most of these are funded by the midget nazi, bloomberg

…Is Bloomberg the “midget Nazi”, it is it someone else?

and should be taking with a very large grain of salt, since it is funded by someone who a distaste for anything 2nd Amendment.

Well, Yeah. But, well, the datasets are available to anyone. If you distrust it, it’s not actually impossible to do the research yourself.

I'm currently reading a book "America, Guns, and Freedom" by Miguel A. Faria, he goes into detail that most of the funded academia reports start out with a preconceived outcome and the data is massaged to fit the predetermined outcome and to promote social engineering.

You’d think that in a conversation about bias-which is a valid conversation to have, some self-awareness would be useful.

This was something he noticed when he worked at the CDC(2002 - 2004) on the grant review committee.

The CDC has been barred from proving funds for gun violence research since 1996. He was on the committee, but if they did provide funds for any of these people, that’s illegal.

As to wikipedia, wikipedia isn't a valid source at anytime, kind of interesting that wikipedia isn't allowed to used as a source in academia, why should we accept it in every day parlance?

Well, because we’re not Academics. And because despite cultural inertia, Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, which is acceptable as a scholarly source.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yikes!
Leaked FBI Document Shows How People Can Self Identify As Prohibited In NICS

The FBI and ATF are using these forms to target gun owners that are seeking help for mental health problems but do not fall under the guidelines of a prohibited person under federal law. Anti-gun doctors or anti-gun family members can push this document on a gun owner in their time of crisis, taking advantage of them in a weakened mental state.

Gun Owners of America are concerned that family members or doctors could coerce the holder of the firearm into giving up their natural-born right to bear arms. Many Americans seek mental help and temporarily turn over their guns to their family members, friends, or a pro-second amendment organization like Hold My Guns until they are in a better mental place. This way the government is not involved and the gun owner doesn’t lose their Constitutional right.

Yeah, fuck that noise.

[Kowani]

Well...there’s always technically the possibility, it’s there with every survey, but it’s not really plausible. Or rather, plausible enough to be much more than a rounding error. It’s does miss an entire demographic, the homeless, who are much more likely to be victimized, and much less likely to have guns to use in self defense.

It's not so much that it fails to account for the homeless, but more that its methodology is such that it would not ask about defensive gun use unless certain qualifiers are met beforehand. It's a measure that will ensure at least a slight underestimation through exclusion.

The qualifier is simple “were you the victim of a crime or an attempted crime.” If you weren’t, there’s no reason to use your gun in self defense.

It would do you well to remember that the NCVS data that cites 65,000 is from several decades ago. In that same time period, the actual number of crimes far exceeded the number of defensive gun uses.

Okay, so instead of 4.5x the general homicide rate it would be 2.77x (in the context of approx 24k homicides in 1990) and about 3.5x the firearms homicide rate (18.25k in 1993). The margin is less massive, but it's still hardly a condemnation of self defense.

Not on its own, no. The issue is that you’re analyzing it in a vacuum. You seem to be assuming that DGUs are automatically effective, and that there aren’t any other tradeoffs. Unfortunately, that’s not true.

In that same time period, the actual number of crimes far exceeded the number of defensive gun uses.

Okay? I'm sure the actual number of crimes today far exceeds the number of defensive gun usages, so I don't know what the point of bringing this up is. I don't think anyone here is going to even try to argue that DGUs are or ever were more prevalent than crime itself.

I’m bringing it up to make a point-if guns were actually useful in preventing crime, their use would be more widespread. People aren’t idiots. Straightforward solutions to problems are beloved by everyone. We’d see a causation link (or, since we don’t live in a vacuum, at least a correlation) between access to guns (not number of guns, since a house with 50 guns and a house with two are just as effective) and a decrease in crime-once you control for other factors. But we don’t. (Also, If you take the high End of Kleck’s work, he did, in fact, try to claim that DGU was more prevalent than actual crime.)

Perhaps not on its own (although take into account the time differences.) However, it is well noted that the effectiveness of using guns in self defense is…pretty much nonexistent

Maybe well noted by people like Hemenway, sure.

To my knowledge, he’s the only one who’s bothered actually doing any research on the subject in the first place. And to my knowledge, this paper has yet to be seriously challenged.

but that’s not enough to justify the negative effects of their wide proliferation.

...such as? I mean the proliferation of firearms has been going on for a while in the US, there's been a general loosening of anti-gun laws (most prominently the sun-setting of the 94 AW ban, DC v Heller, MacDonnald v Chicago, and the upcoming SC hearing regarding NYCs transportation laws) and a significant expansion of right to carry along the state level. What negative effects have these things brought about? It hasn't been increased criminality, firearms homicide. I'll give you firearms death, if you feel like restricting the individual rights of hundreds of millions of people to stop a tiny portion of said people from checking out of life is a righteous cause.

Because these things are controlled by a variety of factors, not just guns. Now, there is evidence that says that both greater numbers of guns, and greater access to guns is connected with an increase in crime. However, the issue is this-whereas most of the other factors involved in criminality have been improving on the aggregate, guns have been becoming even more prevalent. But if we go back to the aforementioned evidence, the liberalization of gun laws has been counterproductive to both of these things.

[Aclion]

Yikes!
Leaked FBI Document Shows How People Can Self Identify As Prohibited In NICS

The FBI and ATF are using these forms to target gun owners that are seeking help for mental health problems but do not fall under the guidelines of a prohibited person under federal law. Anti-gun doctors or anti-gun family members can push this document on a gun owner in their time of crisis, taking advantage of them in a weakened mental state.

Gun Owners of America are concerned that family members or doctors could coerce the holder of the firearm into giving up their natural-born right to bear arms. Many Americans seek mental help and temporarily turn over their guns to their family members, friends, or a pro-second amendment organization like Hold My Guns until they are in a better mental place. This way the government is not involved and the gun owner doesn’t lose their Constitutional right.

Yeah, fuck that noise.

Just reinforces my suspicion that the gun control movement is trying to keep mass shootings up.

[Grinning Dragon]

The issue with National Crime Victimization Survey is the fact that responses to National Crime Victimization Survey has been declining steadily as the crime rate has also slowed over the years and now may not be a true reflection of crime in the US. Over the years the budget has been cut, 12% in 1996, 4% in 2002, 16% in 2006 and 14% in 2007, which leads to a very small sample rate which will cause the error rate to increase.

I’m sorry, are those percentages cuts? Because I can’t find anything to support that.

The National Crime Victimization Survey uses a limited population,

Well, that’s both a tautology and incorrect. In statistics, a population is everyone related to the subject in question. (Everyone in the US-so, tautologically limited, since the number of people is limited, the population must be as well). What is actually used is a limited sample, which is everyone questioned by the survey. However, the sample size is large (49,000 households) and nationally representative. Thus, the size of the sample isn’t as important as you think. Samples should neither be small nor overly-large.

sampling errors because of the 6 month frame of reference,

Well, no. This actually helps to lessen statistical errors, since human memory is…notoriously bad. This makes anything prior to that timeframe extremely unreliable. Because households remain in the program for 3 years, contradictory testimony is found, and a much larger timeline is covered more reliably.

series of victimization only count as one incident,

This used to be a legitimate complaint, but there was a policy change: Beginning in 2011, BJS stopped deleting these outliers. (Outliers being the statistical result of grouping series of victimization into one incident.Instead, reported series victimizations are now directly included in the estimates with no additional adjustment unless more than 10 victimizations are reported in one series. Reported values greater than 10 are truncated to the value of 10. BJS has made the change retroactively back to 1993 in its online NCVS database.

another issue deals with what is known as "telescoping" in which a respondent includes information that is older than what the evaluation period.

Telescoped events which actually occurred prior to the reference period can be minimized at the time of the first interview by a technique known as bounding. Bounding is achieved by comparing incidents reported in an interview with incidents reported in a previous interview and deleting duplicate incidents that were reported in the current reference period. In the NCVS designs, each visit to a household is used to bound the next one by comparing reports in the current interview with those given six months prior. When a report appears to be a duplicate, the respondent is reminded of the earlier report and asked if the new report represents the incident previously mentioned or if it is different. The first interview at a household entering the sample is unbounded, and data collected at these interviews are not included in NCVS estimates. However, if a household in sample moves and another moves into that address, the first interview with the replacement household is unbounded but is included in NCVS estimates.

As to academia papers on firearms, most of these are funded by the midget nazi, bloomberg

…Is Bloomberg the “midget Nazi”, it is it someone else?

and should be taking with a very large grain of salt, since it is funded by someone who a distaste for anything 2nd Amendment.

Well, Yeah. But, well, the datasets are available to anyone. If you distrust it, it’s not actually impossible to do the research yourself.

I'm currently reading a book "America, Guns, and Freedom" by Miguel A. Faria, he goes into detail that most of the funded academia reports start out with a preconceived outcome and the data is massaged to fit the predetermined outcome and to promote social engineering.

You’d think that in a conversation about bias-which is a valid conversation to have, some self-awareness would be useful.

This was something he noticed when he worked at the CDC(2002 - 2004) on the grant review committee.

The CDC has been barred from proving funds for gun violence research since 1996. He was on the committee, but if they did provide funds for any of these people, that’s illegal.

As to wikipedia, wikipedia isn't a valid source at anytime, kind of interesting that wikipedia isn't allowed to used as a source in academia, why should we accept it in every day parlance?

Well, because we’re not Academics. And because despite cultural inertia, Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica, which is acceptable as a scholarly source.

The CDC is barred from using taxpayer funds to promote gun control, which reached a fevered pitch back in the early 90s, the promotion of gun control at taxpayer expense by the CDC started back in the 70s, the CDC can still do research or allocate funds to outside entities to do research as long as those outside entities do not promote an infringement upon an enumerated right.

Wikipedia isn't peer reviewed which is why it isn't acceptable to use as a source. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of wikipedia.

[Licana]

The qualifier is simple “were you the victim of a crime or an attempted crime.” If you weren’t, there’s no reason to use your gun in self defense.

If a criminal tries to commit a criminal act, and your weapon acts as a deterrent, were you a "victim" of anything? This isn't so much a question of legalese accuracy but of mentality (since the NCVS is a telephone survey); you might say yes, I'd say no, because no ill befell me. This is also prudent to cases of defense of others (i.e. stopping a store robbery). To note, I don't think the NCVS hugely underestimates DGUs, I think it's far closer to the mark than even the lower ends of Kleck's estimates, but it almost certainly does underestimate DGUs.

Not on its own, no. The issue is that you’re analyzing it in a vacuum. You seem to be assuming that DGUs are automatically effective, and that there aren’t any other tradeoffs. Unfortunately, that’s not true.

According to, so far, you and a known partisan researcher. I also don't believe that it is automatically effective, the number comparisons are to contrast DGU's "rarity" in comparison to the incidents commonly used to promote gun control.

I’m bringing it up to make a point-if guns were actually useful in preventing crime, their use would be more widespread. People aren’t idiots. Straightforward solutions to problems are beloved by everyone. We’d see a causation link (or, since we don’t live in a vacuum, at least a correlation) between access to guns (not number of guns, since a house with 50 guns and a house with two are just as effective) and a decrease in crime-once you control for other factors. But we don’t.

You can see the state level gun ownership rate breakdown without a paywall at this link.

(Also, If you take the high End of Kleck’s work, he did, in fact, try to claim that DGU was more prevalent than actual crime.)

I don't believe Kleck posts in this thread.

To my knowledge, he’s the only one who’s bothered actually doing any research on the subject in the first place. And to my knowledge, this paper has yet to be seriously challenged

Because these things are controlled by a variety of factors, not just guns. Now, there is evidence that says that both greater numbers of guns, and greater access to guns is connected with an increase in crime.

And there's evidence showing the opposite as well.

However, the issue is this-whereas most of the other factors involved in criminality have been improving on the aggregate, guns have been becoming even more prevalent. But if we go back to the aforementioned evidence, the liberalization of gun laws has been counterproductive to both of these things.

Only if you ignore dissenting research.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

It's almost as if asshats break into homes or attempt to rape people or pull a knife on people while they're walking at night, and someone has to defend themselves.

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

Your second article is pretty much claiming you are 10x more likely to lie to police and admit to shooting someone when you didn't rather than actually use one.

If that were the case people would be confessing to murders that didn't happen left, right, and center.

[Kowani]

The CDC is barred from using taxpayer funds to promote gun control, which reached a fevered pitch back in the early 90s, the promotion of gun control at taxpayer expense by the CDC started back in the 70s, the CDC can still do research or allocate funds to outside entities to do research as long as those outside entities do not promote an infringement upon an enumerated right.

Theoretically, yes. Functionally, no. The ambiguity of the law pretty much killed off federal funding for gun violence research.

Wikipedia isn't peer reviewed which is why it isn't acceptable to use as a source. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the use of wikipedia.

Fair.

The qualifier is simple “were you the victim of a crime or an attempted crime.” If you weren’t, there’s no reason to use your gun in self defense.

If a criminal tries to commit a criminal act, and your weapon acts as a deterrent, were you a "victim" of anything? This isn't so much a question of legalese accuracy but of mentality (since the NCVS is a telephone survey); you might say yes, I'd say no, because no ill befell me. This is also prudent to cases of defense of others (i.e. stopping a store robbery). To note, I don't think the NCVS hugely underestimates DGUs, I think it's far closer to the mark than even the lower ends of Kleck's estimates, but it almost certainly does underestimate DGUs.

I would say yes, because the victim of an attempted crime doesn’t actually have to suffer. It’s why conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder are crimes, even if they never reach a physical attempt.

According to, so far, you and a known partisan researcher.

I believe I’ve cited two of three different researchers at this current junction.

]I also don't believe that it is automatically effective, the number comparisons are to contrast DGU's "rarity" in comparison to the incidents commonly used to promote gun control.

You’ll notice that I’ve not been arguing about mass shootings.

I’m bringing it up to make a point-if guns were actually useful in preventing crime, their use would be more widespread. People aren’t idiots. Straightforward solutions to problems are beloved by everyone. We’d see a causation link (or, since we don’t live in a vacuum, at least a correlation) between access to guns (not number of guns, since a house with 50 guns and a house with two are just as effective) and a decrease in crime-once you control for other factors. But we don’t.

You can see the state level gun ownership rate breakdown without a paywall at this link.

It’s interesting that they say that. See, the R², which is the only numerical data (besides gun ownership and homicides) they give us is evaluating the effectiveness of the regression model in ascertaining the correct result. The actual correlation coefficient, r is not given. So, I did some digging. I used the site you gave me for gun ownership, and the cited FBI data for homicide. For whatever reason, Florida wasn’t given, so I had to get direct data. I then utilized this site to actually graph the data. The gun ownership data is given in the following order:

5.8, 10.3, 11.3, 14.4, 16.6, 22.6, 22.6, 27.1, 28.8, 19.6, 19.8, 26.2, 27.1, 28.8, 32.2, 33.8, 33.8, 34.7, 35, 36.7, 47.9, 5.2, 20.7, , 28.7, 29.3, 31.2, 31.6, 32.5, 35.7, 39.4, 42.4, 42.8, 44.5, 44.5, 49.8, 54.2, 57.9, 20.1, 26.6, 27.7, 31.9, 32.3, 24.3, 35.7, 45.1, 49.9, 52.3, 53.8, 56.9, 61.7

, and the Firearm Homicide Data in the following order:

16, 517, 246, 5, 97, 118, 11, 457, 2, 310, 32, 364, 321, 416, 63, 142, 21, 97, 53, 8, 4, 38, 293, 286, 250, 111, 376, 669, 805, 209, 116, 120, 207, 351, 135, 27, 93, 1257, 36, 93, 22, 232, 65, 84, 7, 67, 12, 5, 12, 19

The data is in the order that was given in your study (RI, then NY, then NJ, etc). However, the result I got was markedly different-

, with an r² value that differs from theirs, 0.057, and a different equation as well-ŷ = 323.4932 – 4.18400007. Looking at the residuals, we see random scatter. This helps us know that the model isn’t a bad one-but it has far too many outliers. This is especially obvious when one looks at s, being 233.738. However, your infograpgh assumes a linear regression. I took the liberty of checking for both quadratic and exponential regressions as well.

(ŷ = 128.3227 + 9.6314x – 0.2052x2, r²=0.095) and

(ŷ = 191.1141 × 0.9726^x, r²=0.059) In conclusion-get better graphs.

(Also, If you take the high End of Kleck’s work, he did, in fact, try to claim that DGU was more prevalent than actual crime.)

I don't believe Kleck posts in this thread.

Nah, but he has been cited in most of the previous threads.

To my knowledge, he’s the only one who’s bothered actually doing any research on the subject in the first place. And to my knowledge, this paper has yet to be seriously challenged
Because these things are controlled by a variety of factors, not just guns. Now, there is evidence that says that both greater numbers of guns, and greater access to guns is connected with an increase in crime.

And there's evidence showing the opposite

Should’ve gone with something whose evaluation committee didn’t disagree with: “The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. Indeed, the committee was unable to find any of the laws that it examined had any effect on crime or suicide rates. In the case of right-to-carry laws, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements. The council determined that Lott's data-sets can be subject to manipulation given a number of factors, so that different studies produce different results. "While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change."” There was one dissenter-on only one issue. source.

as well.

Paywall.

However, the issue is this-whereas most of the other factors involved in criminality have been improving on the aggregate, guns have been becoming even more prevalent. But if we go back to the aforementioned evidence, the liberalization of gun laws has been counterproductive to both of these things.

Only if you ignore dissenting research.

You mean critically review the research.

EDIT: Fixed links and spoilers.

[Kowani]

Maybe if that was actually effective or happened on any major scale, you’d have a point.

Your second article is pretty much claiming you are 10x more likely to lie to police and admit to shooting someone when you didn't rather than actually use one.

If that were the case people would be confessing to murders that didn't happen left, right, and center.

…That’s not what it says. It partially talks about the dangers of extrapolation, and it also talks about exaggeration and outright lying to researchers. Researchers are not the police.

Your statement is inane.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Only if you ignore dissenting research.

You mean critically review the research.

You mean ignoring people who disagree because they aren't directly addressing any one particular counter-counter-study?

Your second article is pretty much claiming you are 10x more likely to lie to police and admit to shooting someone when you didn't rather than actually use one.

If that were the case people would be confessing to murders that didn't happen left, right, and center.

…That’s not what it says. It partially talks about the dangers of extrapolation, and it also talks about exaggeration and outright lying to researchers. Researchers are not the police.

Your statement is inane.

Your paper literally says that it is assuming that of the 66 that said they shot someone, 50 or more of them lied and implies this is a low figure.
("1% of the 5000 respondents giving a false-positive is a low figure")
TBH, going any higher and there wouldn't be a graph at all left to render.

In fact, it is asssuming only 2 people in the entire survey told the truth. (they did no research to prove only 2 are actual or that the other 54 reporting they had were lying, just citing their breast-cancer research and how many false-positives they got from that and copy-pasting it)

50 is more than 10x greater than 2.

That's literally what they're implying and stating to make the tables they gave actually work.

Y'really should read what you're linking, because I'm just paraphrasing the last 10 paragraphs of that paper.

Also, yeah, crimminal investigators are research specialists by definition.
Honestly, a decent poll/survey can keep the margin of error down to less than 0.1% of total repondents giving a false positive, not a full 1.0% and the people who made the original survey were likely savvy enough to this to justify geting paid despite their findings not agreeing with policies at the time.

[The Lone Alliance]

Most liberal states tend to have higher population, though. Of course they’d have more absolute numbers.

I wasn't talking about by states but by locations.

However, if you look at the gun murder rate per 100,000, the only ones in the red are red states of which there are 11 (of the 13 total.), with the exception of DC and Maryland.

Delaware isn't a Red State either.
Another graph to look at is the crime rate of cities and that's where it gets really interesting....
Missouri and Louisiana are top of the list but looking at the city graph shows quickly why.
St. Louis and New Orleans are the top murder capitals of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... crime_rate

[Totenborg]

Most liberal states tend to have higher population, though. Of course they’d have more absolute numbers.

I wasn't talking about by states but by locations.

However, if you look at the gun murder rate per 100,000, the only ones in the red are red states of which there are 11 (of the 13 total.), with the exception of DC and Maryland.

Delaware isn't a Red State either.
Another graph to look at is the crime rate of cities and that's where it gets really interesting....
Missouri and Louisiana are top of the list but looking at the city graph shows quickly why.
St. Louis and New Orleans are the top murder capitals of the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... crime_rate

We're number one! Seriously though, I am kinda of the opinion that poverty and poor education may be a better indicator of gun violence than access to firearms.