• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Brady Campaign vs. GOA

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
19
Likes
1
Location
Maine
I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that states with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher overall homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership.

I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that the risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms; the risk of suicide is three to five times greater; and that a gun in the home is 21 times more likely to be used against the homeowner or family member in a completed or attempted suicide, a criminal assault or homicide, or an unintentional shooting death or injury, than used in self defense.

I wonder, finally, whether Sen. Reid knows that among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of those children, when questioned separately, said that they had, and that of youths who committed suicide with firearms, 82% obtained the firearm from their home, usually a parent's firearm.

Mr. Helmke may want to remember another interesting statistic concerning what is likely one of his favorite constitutional amendments, “Moronic liberal columnists are 100% more likely to type something stupid if they have a keyboard attached to their computer than those moronic liberal columnists who don’t”
 

Zappa

Road Warrior
NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
50,386
Likes
27,311
Location
Living Free In The 603
and that a gun in the home is 21 times more likely to be used against the homeowner or family member in a completed or attempted suicide, a criminal assault or homicide, or an unintentional shooting death or injury, than used in self defense

Only 21 times more likely. ?
They can't even get there own BS numbers straight.
For years I kept hearing that it was Forty Three times more likely.
But then again, maybe they finally realized they weren't fooling anyone with such a ridiculously high number and scaled it back a bit. [thinking]
 
Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
1,293
Likes
132
Location
Spencer
"Sen. Ensign was right about the high number of gun deaths in America relative to Europe. Every year, 30,000 people in America are killed by gunfire, while another 80,000 are wounded. (By contrast, England and Wales have about 200 gun deaths total in a year, including 60 gun homicides, with a gun homicide rate over 30 times lower than ours.)"

SO guns are outlawed in GB and with a population in England and Wales of less then 1/30 of the US they have a homicide rate 30 times lower. Wow those numbers really prove your point.[rolleyes]

Same BS problem is people don't think about what is really being said. ANd if you actually check the numbers for the UShttp://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe It just shows even more interesting facts, hard to find where they get the numbers for England and Wales though.
 

strangenh

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,367
Likes
2,897
Location
NH
SO guns are outlawed in GB and with a population in England and Wales of less then 1/30 of the US they have a homicide rate 30 times lower. Wow those numbers really prove your point.[rolleyes]
Yep. Years and years of looking at bad stats sends up a red flag for me whenever I see an unscaled base statistic, a stat used with peculiar qualifications, or one used without any citation indicating its derivation.

If they have to manipulate numbers out of context or make broad brushstrokes out of micro-studies to make points, you know to be suspicious. The accurate positions don't need bunk to back a point up.
 
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
894
Likes
105
Location
Somerville, MA
It's amazing how some people (on both sides really, but more on the anti-gun side) have a complete ignorance of the concept of correlation versus causation, or when it applies. It looks like the studies that they quote realize this, but the people writing the editorials conveniently leave it out.

One abstract (that says that states with more firearms have higher homicide rates) concludes with:
Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

From an article that says that the risk of homicide is 3 times greater with a firearm in the home:
The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home.

The article that claims that a gun is 21 times more likely to be used against a homeowner only considers a gun to have been successfully used in self defense if the assailant/intruder is actually shot. They don't consider cases where the gun is brandished and the assailant flees or when the potential presence of a firearm prevents the assault before it even happens (of course, it would be very difficult to account for these situations).

Another one asks parents if their kids have handled guns in the house, and then ask the kids the same thing. 22% of kids whose parents said "no" contradicted their parents. Because children are known to never lie about anything, ever.


Obviously this is just an anti-gun person writing an editorial, and we should be used to that by now, but all of the anti-gun people cite these studies without considering their limitations even a little bit.
 
Top Bottom