Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 137 of 137

Thread: Guns Kill

  1. #121
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by alex62303 View Post
    I can help, here is the correct link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html. This appears to provide convincing evidence for a link between gun availability and homicide rates.
    Well its a start, but really this link is just an article about the actual studies.

    The links to the papers are actually found here:
    1: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...59178903000442
    2: http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abst...ross_26.1.aspx
    3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1447364/
    4: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17070975


    I would also like to point out a higher level issue with science in general. Gun violence is a highly emotional and political issue. Scientists are not immune to that pressure any more than most people. A epidemiologic study of homicide research found " Most studies and reports surveyed failed in at least one way to observe basic standards of the science of epidemiology."


    Ok, not that having started lets do a critique of these articles in turn.

    Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature


    First, from the abstract: "No longitudinal cohort study seems to have investigated the association between a gun in the home and homicide."

    So from the outset this study admits to being a snapshot rather than a trend. Its use of studies relying on international and even interstate data without the appropriate controls provided by time automatically removes the author's ability to imply anything like a causation route to this finding, as noted both in the abstract and the findings page. More on this in the critique of study 2, but the comparison of Chicago homicide rates to San Francisco homicide rates in 2001 gives you virtually no actual information. Chicago might have higher gun ownership rates and homicide rates, but they might also have had higher homicide rates when they had lower gun ownership rates, without the appropriate data its fallacious to assume a relationship.

    A more extensive study done by the National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#toc, found no relationship between those two variables when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide.


    Firearm Availability and Homicide Rates across 26 High-Income Countries


    This study also lacks a time series component sufficiently long enough to account for factors other than gun ownership to ascribe a relationship with.

    To again look at the abstract of the study we see shockingly bad methodology:

    Methods: Homicide rates for the early 1990s come from 26 of 27 of the highly industrialized or high-income countries with greater than 1 million population as classified by the World Bank. Two common proxies for gun availability are used, the percentage of suicides with a firearm, and theCook index, the average of the percentage of suicides with a firearm and the percentage of homicides with a firearm.

    Results: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.

    First, they use two proxies to identify firearm ownership rates that are correlated, which we should remember from stats is a no no.

    Second, they use poor proxies, use of a firearm for suicide is extremely correlated to cultural backgrounds, sex and age to name a few. At a minimum those variables would need to be controlled for in order to come up with a basic proxy, but the study does no such thing. A good example of this included in the study is Switzerland, which has a low suicide rate in general, a lower use of suicide by firearm than the average used in the study, but actually has higher gun ownership rates

    Third, they use a "simple regressions (no control variables)" meaning that no other factors were considered, at all. None. They attempt no common cause control, no other correlation factors, no explanatory model, no population dynamic control, nothing. This is below the requirements for the junior taking a statistics class at the University of Washington. http://faculty.washington.edu/cadolph/?page=42 This study would fail topics 10, 11 and 12 of that class, and they authors would have received no credit for problem set 5 and probably failed the final.

    Fourth, their time horizon prevents any substantive use of underlying variables (even if they weren't excluded intentionally) behind the data. Most developed countries have had relatively stable gun laws throughout the 90s. A good example would be that they found a lower homicide rate in London than New York, with higher firearm ownership in the latter than the former. The problem with that analysis is two fold. Not only does the magnitude of difference in ownership rates not account for the homicide level differences, but historically London has always had a lower homicide rate than New York, even when New York had strict gun control laws and London had lax laws and higher ownership rates.

    Rates of Household Firearm Ownership and Homicide Across US Regions and States, 1988–1997


    I would like to point out an interesting sentence in the report: "although other studies found no association with homicide perpetration." So while they find a connection between ownership and homicide rates, they note that studies have found that they firearms aren't committing the crimes in question. That is a glaring common cause finding, that argues that homicide rates have nothing to do with a firearm since those homicides aren't being committed by firearms. The study the authors cite point out that most studies of the nature of the type Rod pointed out use homicides as reported by Police, not by Courts, meaning that they include a high number of cases where the crime is dismissed as self-defense. The study also found that gun ownership tended to reduce the likelihood of violence in a criminal encounter, but increased the proportion of fatalities in situations where there was violence, which also paints a very different picture from the one painted by the Harvard authors.

    Finally, this study also has an extremely constricted time horizon, 1988-1997. In the caveats section the authors noted that gun ownership rates did not change in noticeable rates during this time (less than three percent concentrated in two census region) so the regression association found was entirely between regions (implying a regional cultural differences) rather than tied to gun ownership rates directly.

    State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.


    Unlike the study above, this study did control for many factors and tied (at a state, not an individual level like the Kleck-Hogan paper) increased firearms to increased firearm homicide rates.

    I will point out that the time series used is even more restrictive than the one before (gun ownership changed by an even smaller rate and was even more concentrated). Since I have discussed the time series limitation on several occasions I will simply say that they apply here as well. By measuring different people at the same time you are searching for differences in the person, not differences in the gun rate.

    More importantly, the study notes in its caveats section that if cases in which the homicide was declared self defense are removed the statistical significance disappears. That means that the entire significance of their finding revolves around cases where a gun owner used the gun to defend themselves.




    So in the end the conclusion of the studies is really reduced to two findings. (1)There are significant cultural differences that underlie both gun ownership and homicide rates in regions. (2) In areas (within the US) where there are higher gun ownership rates, there is an increased use of those firearms in self-defense scenarios.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #122
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    We enjoy our freedoms today, which include our ability to debate online freely because we can defend ourselves as a nation against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Personally, I do not take our freedom and our ability to defend it for granted.
    I am free despite the military, not because of it. I am free dispite Vietnam, despite the invasion of Grenada, depsite the first Gulf War, despite the Mexican American war, despite the Figi wars in the 1800's. The military is not the cause of my freedom, I would be just as free without the military and the glorification of violence.


    So do you think the violent video game industry along with the motion picture industry that entertains us with blockbuster high violence movies should be heavily regulated?
    No. I just dont buy violent video games and go to violent movies. I cant control everyone else.


    Then why have gun related assault crimes in the UK, as shown on previous posts, (a country with gun control) not decreased significantly?
    No school shootings......


    I would argue that violence is simply an effect; it's a chosen response to a bigger issue. It is not the cause. Remove (address) the cause, the response (violence) will change.
    Violence is the effect of ignorance, stupidty, pride and honor.


    I think you may have this mixed up. What we honor in those days is our victory over tyranny.
    Right? "We" honor. I dont honor, nothin. "Our victory", yeh? My ancestors didnt illegally immigrate the to US until long after the Revolutionary War. What "OUR" victory are you refering to?

  3. #123
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    hoodsport, wa
    Posts
    86
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    every year approximately 4000 people die in the usa alone from drowning. we can easily prevent these tragedies by getting rid of water.

    pretty much how i see liberal gun "logic" working.
    i fear the fate of all mankind is in the hands of fools.....
    -king crimson-

  4. #124
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    No school shootings......
    Are you sure?

    Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jokela_school_shooting

    Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Canada
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Iam free despite the military, not because of it. I am free dispite Vietnam, despite the invasion of Grenada, depsite the first Gulf War, despite the Mexican American war, despite the Figi wars in the 1800's. The military is not the cause of my freedom, I would be just as free without the military and the glorification of violence.
    Are you free despite the American Revolution which allowed America to exist without tyranny rule?

    If you really want to see how free you are without a defense to defend your freedom, I might suggest that you go live in North Korea or Iran or China or Cuba for about two years--if you can hang on that long. Then feel free to report back to ODN and tell us about how free you are.


    No. I just dont buy violent video games and go to violent movies. I cant control everyone else.
    I see. Well since we can't control everyone else, as you state, banning guns will not greatly reduce gun related crimes as we learn from other countries. Do you understand this?


    hen why have gun related assault crimes in the UK, as shown on previous posts, (a country with gun control) not decreased significantly?
    No school shootings.....
    .
    Why does it matter where an innocent child dies if they are killed by a gun -- they are still dead. If there are as many deaths with gun crimes (in a city that has very strict gun control) and children dying from guns in that city (instead of a school yard), how does banning guns solve the problem? A child killed by a gun is a child killed by a gun. Do you know how many innocent children and young adults die in Chicago monthly, a city with very tough gun laws?

    Moreover, no Chicago youth is entirely safe from the problem of gun violence. The Crime Lab’s original data analysis suggests that perhaps as many as one out of every five youths killed by gunfire in Chicago was an innocent bystander and not the intended target of the shooter.9

    Violence is the effect of ignorance
    Ok, so ignorance is the main enemy. We agree. How do we heal ignorance?

    I dont honor, nothin.
    That may change one day.

    "Our victory", yeh? My ancestors didnt illegally immigrate the to US until long after the Revolutionary War. What "OUR" victory are you refering to?
    The victory that America was and is here so your ancestors could immigrate to it and not live under a dictatorship or tyranny.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  6. #126
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A more extensive study done by the National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#toc, found no relationship between those two variables when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide.
    Could you indicate where exactly they reach these conclusions in the report? I quickly scanned the section "major conclusions" and could not find what you're saying here. Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    First, they use two proxies to identify firearm ownership rates that are correlated, which we should remember from stats is a no no.
    Using two correlated variables as independent explanatory variables in a multiple regression model is indeed not a good idea. But that's not what they did; they developed separate regression models for each variable (see tables 2 and 3 in the paper).

  7. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic
    Then why have gun related assault crimes in the UK, as shown on previous posts, (a country with gun control) not decreased significantly?
    A 2006 study using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) statistical analysis found no measurable effect detectable from the 1997 firearms legislation but in subsequent years firearm homicides declined. In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall". Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitations guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

    It's overly optimistic to expect gun-control laws to have an instant effect on firearm-related deaths. But, as the above quote indicates, they eventually should.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I would also like to point out a higher level issue with science in general. Gun violence is a highly emotional and political issue. Scientists are not immune to that pressure any more than most people. A epidemiologic study of homicide research found " Most studies and reports surveyed failed in at least one way to observe basic standards of the science of epidemiology."
    Is this an admission that the studies you've linked thus far on this subject are flawed in a significant way?

    I couldn't help but notice that you did not name the particular studies that comprise "most studies and reports surveyed [which] failed to observe basic standards of the science of epidemiology." Could it be that, in the main, the studies and reports that do so are the studies and reports provided by the gun industry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    A more extensive study done by the National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#toc, found no relationship between those two variables when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide.
    You are in violation of board policy! Please provide an accurate link to the claims you've made in the quoted passage above or retract them. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by puma237 View Post
    every year approximately 4000 people die in the usa alone from drowning. we can easily prevent these tragedies by getting rid of water.

    pretty much how i see liberal gun "logic" working.
    Do you or do you not understand logic? If you do, then please explain why you believe it is illogical to say that the absence of water would eliminate deaths from drowning in water.

    For example, do you believe that the presence of a backyard pool at a 3-year-old's home, ceteris paribus, increases or decreases the risk that the 3-year-old will die by drowning?

  8. #128
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by alex62303 View Post
    Could you indicate where exactly they reach these conclusions in the report? I quickly scanned the section "major conclusions" and could not find what you're saying here. Thanks.
    Not a problem. The lack of linkage is both referenced in the Executive Summary and in Chapter 4 under the Homicide section, it is most conclusively stated in the chapter 4 under the "Homicide Rates by Country" section, page 56.
    Some researchers have used data like those summarized above to assess the relationship between firearm-related homicides and firearms availability. For the most part this research focuses on industrialized nations and uses various proxies for the measure of firearms availability. While the vast majority of these studies conclude that homicides and availability are closely associated (Lester, 1990; Killias, 1993a, 1993b; Hemenway and Miller, 2000), the methodological problems in this research (measurement of key variables is of questionable validity, the use of nation-states as the unit of analysis may mask subnational variability, and models tested are poorly specified) do not encourage us to place much weight on this research. However, as noted earlier, the level of nongun homicide is much higher in the United States than it is in other countries. A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around.

    Gun ownership rates in relation to other crimes begins on page 111 (it is also mentioned in the exsum briefly). They conclude that while it is clear that firearm ownership reduces non-homicide crime levels, they are very uncertain to what extent this is true. While the committee finds trouble with the accepted methodology (understandably) they also admit to not having a clear remedy for that problem except to better define the terms used in surveys.

    Quote Originally Posted by alex
    Using two correlated variables as independent explanatory variables in a multiple regression model is indeed not a good idea. But that's not what they did; they developed separate regression models for each variable (see tables 2 and 3 in the paper).
    I'm not sure why you are inferring that from the tables. The presence of a standardized coefficient (Beta) is the result of attempting to measure the relative effects of multiple independent variables in a regression that have varying units of measure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Is this an admission that the studies you've linked thus far on this subject are flawed in a significant way?
    No more than it is an accusation that these studies are incorrect simply because they are studies. It is simply a caveat that careful analysis of the methodology is important since, as noted in the study I posted, peer review has had little success eliminating even very basic methodological errors.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod
    You are in violation of board policy! Please provide an accurate link to the claims you've made in the quoted passage above or retract them. Thank you.
    Rod, as you have been warned before, Red is a color for mods to use when addressing forum members, as I am now. Please do not use that color in the future, thank you.

    Given that both parts of my argument were located in the page linked (the exsum) and that I have further explained the position in response to Alex's polite request, I'm assuming you are satisfied?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  9. #129
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Given that both parts of my argument were located in the page linked (the exsum) and that I have further explained the position in response to Alex's polite request, I'm assuming you are satisfied?
    Normally, it's the case that the information from a link that is used to support a claim is quoted and then a link is provided for that quote. Is there any reason that such cannot be done in this instance?

    IOW, I would like for you to cut'n'paste the part of the article that you believe supports your claim and then provide a link for that quote.

    Again, for your convenience, the claim that you've made for which I would like to see support is: "[A study by the National Academies Press] found no relationship between [gun ownership rates and homicide rates] when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide."

    Please cut'n'paste the specific sentences from the study that you believe supports the above claim and provide a link for those sentences. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Rod, as you have been warned before, Red is a color for mods to use when addressing forum members, as I am now.
    To the best of my knowledge I have never been given a warning that red is a color only to be used by moderators. Are there similar restrictions on the use of any other text colors that I should know about? Thanks in advance.

  10. #130
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Normally, it's the case that the information from a link that is used to support a claim is quoted and then a link is provided for that quote. Is there any reason that such cannot be done in this instance?
    That is one solution, as long as the argument is available without opening the link there is no problem. I felt it was easier to summarize the argument (given the sheer volume of material I was providing) rather than selecting sections to quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod
    IOW, I would like for you to cut'n'paste the part of the article that you believe supports your claim and then provide a link for that quote.
    That is not a requirement of ODN. I did quote and paste the selected text for one argument, and summarized the argument from another. That meets the standards. I think you are attempting to troll rather than debate the topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod
    To the best of my knowledge I have never been given a warning that red is a color only to be used by moderators. Are there similar restrictions on the use of any other text colors that I should know about? Thanks in advance.
    Red is the only color restricted to moderators.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #131
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    The link you provide to a study that you say supports your claim that: "[A study by the National Academies Press] found no relationship between [gun ownership rates and homicide rates] when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide" appears to contain nothing that actually supports your claim.

    This (from the study you link):

    "Some researchers have used data like those summarized above to assess the relationship between firearm-related homicides and firearms availability. For the most part this research focuses on industrialized nations and uses various proxies for the measure of firearms availability. While the vast majority of these studies conclude that homicides and availability are closely associated (Lester, 1990; Killias, 1993a, 1993b; Hemenway and Miller, 2000), the methodological problems in this research (measurement of key variables is of questionable validity, the use of nation-states as the unit of analysis may mask subnational variability, and models tested are poorly specified) do not encourage us to place much weight on this research" . . .

    is not support for this (your claim):

    "[A study by the National Academies Press] found no relationship between [gun ownership rates and homicide rates] when longitudinal studies were included."

    This (from the study you link):

    "Without better information on the nature and extent of response problems, it is impossible to know whether and how the estimated associations between defensive gun use, crime, and injury are biased. If, as Kleck and Gertz (1995) suggest, the NCVS misses over 2 million defensive uses per year, then biases caused by reporting errors may be substantial" . . .

    is not support for this (your claim):

    "They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes."

    Please support your claim or retract it. Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by Rodriguez; December 21st, 2012 at 10:06 AM.

  12. #132
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not a problem. The lack of linkage is both referenced in the Executive Summary and in Chapter 4 under the Homicide section
    Where in the Executive Summary does it say that there is a lack of linkage between gun availability and homicide rates? Instead, at the bottom of page 5, continuing on page 6, it says: "in comparisons among countries...there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    it is most conclusively stated in the chapter 4 under the "Homicide Rates by Country" section, page 56.
    On my copy this is in chapter 3, page 54.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Some researchers have used data like those summarized above to assess the relationship between firearm-related homicides and firearms availability. For the most part this research focuses on industrialized nations and uses various proxies for the measure of firearms availability. While the vast majority of these studies conclude that homicides and availability are closely associated (Lester, 1990; Killias, 1993a, 1993b; Hemenway and Miller, 2000), the methodological problems in this research (measurement of key variables is of questionable validity, the use of nation-states as the unit of analysis may mask subnational variability, and models tested are poorly specified) do not encourage us to place much weight on this research. However, as noted earlier, the level of nongun homicide is much higher in the United States than it is in other countries. A high level of violence may be a cause of a high level of firearms availability instead of the other way around.
    This excerpt does not claim that there is no linkage. It offers arguments as to why more research is needed. The paragraph ends by saying: "Further work with better measures and more complete samples might be useful; for now this literature can be considered suggestive but not conclusive."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Gun ownership rates in relation to other crimes begins on page 111 (it is also mentioned in the exsum briefly). They conclude that while it is clear that firearm ownership reduces non-homicide crime levels, they are very uncertain to what extent this is true. While the committee finds trouble with the accepted methodology (understandably) they also admit to not having a clear remedy for that problem except to better define the terms used in surveys.
    Thanks, but it would help if you could reproduce here the exact statements from the report that support your claim that "when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide."

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure why you are inferring that from the tables. The presence of a standardized coefficient (Beta) is the result of attempting to measure the relative effects of multiple independent variables in a regression that have varying units of measure.
    But they did not do a multiple regression. They developed two regression models: one using number of gun suicides as independent variable, and an other using the Cook index as independent variable. They standardize the two variables so as to be able to compare the two regression models. If they had developed a single multiple regression model then your critique would be correct. But that's not what they did. This is obvious when reading the results section.

  13. #133
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    First, I would point out that this is one of five studies and more than a dozen arguments presented. Now, having said that:


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    is not support for this (your claim):
    They state that the studies that they researched do not support that conclusion and the extent of their findings is due to methodological errors. They further state that:

    Ecological studies currently provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms ownership. For example, in the United States, suicide appears to be positively associated with rates of firearms ownership, but homicide is not.

    The following paragraphs go on to explain why a relationship is not found. Studies do not address substitution issues, location issues (ie if gun ownership goes up in rural areas, but homicide goes up in urban areas), and other methodological problems that lead to no link being found.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rod
    is not support for this (your claim):
    Nor do I claim it was. I pointed out the information found on page 111 in which the study finds significance in the number of times firearms are used to defend against other crimes. Additionally, in tables 6-1, 6-2, 6-5 through 7, all found negative correlations between active gun ownership and other violent crimes.



    Quote Originally Posted by alex62303 View Post
    Where in the Executive Summary does it say that there is a lack of linkage between gun availability and homicide rates? Instead, at the bottom of page 5, continuing on page 6, it says: "in comparisons among countries...there is a substantial association between gun ownership and homicide."
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    On my copy this is in chapter 3, page 54.
    I believe you are right, I think that was my mistake as I was reading through. Thank you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    This excerpt does not claim that there is no linkage. It offers arguments as to why more research is needed. The paragraph ends by saying: "Further work with better measures and more complete samples might be useful; for now this literature can be considered suggestive but not conclusive."
    Please see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    Thanks, but it would help if you could reproduce here the exact statements from the report that support your claim that "when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide."
    Please see the tables listed above.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    But they did not do a multiple regression. They developed two regression models: one using number of gun suicides as independent variable, and an other using the Cook index as independent variable. They standardize the two variables so as to be able to compare the two regression models. If they had developed a single multiple regression model then your critique would be correct. But that's not what they did. This is obvious when reading the results section.
    Not at all, they discuss the standardized coefficient which is not used in a singular, linear regression. Looking at the results section I think you might be confusing multiple year regressions with multiple variable regressions. What makes it clear to you that they ran these two independent variables separately?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  14. #134
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    "[From the study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review:] Ecological studies currently provide contradictory evidence on violence and firearms ownership. For example, in the United States, suicide appears to be positively associated with rates of firearms ownership, but homicide is not."

    The following paragraphs go on to explain why a relationship is not found. Studies do not address substitution issues, location issues (ie if gun ownership goes up in rural areas, but homicide goes up in urban areas), and other methodological problems that lead to no link being found.
    The study doesn't say that no relationship was found in the studies it reviewed as you say that it does. Instead, it says that "the vast majority of these studies conclude that homicides and availability are closely associated."

    It goes on to say only that "the methodological problems in this research do not encourage us to place much weight on this research."

    There is a significant difference in saying that no relationship was found by several different studies AND that a relationship found over and over again by several different studies should be discounted because of the methodologies used by those studies.

    Nor do I claim it was. I pointed out the information found on page 111 in which the study finds significance in the number of times firearms are used to defend against other crimes.
    But your claim isn't that the study "finds significance in the number of times firearms are used to defend against other crimes."

    Your claim is that the study "found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes."

    The study actually does no such thing. In fact, it says much the same thing that it says when talking about the relationship between homocides and availability of firearms. It says that methodological problems found in the studies leads to the discounting of conclusions reached by those studies.

    Specifically, it says: "Certainly, the numerous surveys reveal some phenomena. In light of the differences in coverage and potential response errors, however, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain. Ultimately, the committee found no comfort in numbers: the existing surveys do not resolve the ongoing questions about response problems and do not change the fact that different subpopulations are queried. Mere repetition does not eliminate bias."

  15. #135
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A more extensive study done by the National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#toc, found no relationship between those two variables when longitudinal studies were included. They also found an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes. Finally, when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide.
    Thanks for providing the additional quotes from the NAP report to support your claims about their conclusions. Let's see how it holds up:

    (1) you claim they found "no relationship between those two variables (gun availability and homicide rate) when longitudinal studies were included"

    To support this claim, you first quote the third paragraph on page 54: however this paragraph does not state that there is no relationship. Instead, it says previous studies have found significant positive correlations between the two variables when comparing data across countries, and it points out the need for additional research to verify reliability of the results.

    Then you quote the Executive Summary, last paragraph on page 5: here a lack of correlation is mentioned for the US. It doesn't mention though that this is based on longitudinal studies. How did you infer that? Which studies are you talking about?

    (2) you claim they found "an inverse relationship between gun ownership and other crimes", and "when they restricted gun ownership to legal gun ownership, they found an inverse relationship (not a causal, a correlation) between legal gun ownership and homicide"

    To support these claims, you refer to the tables in chapter 6. However, these tables show (calculated) changes in crime rate with or without right-to-carry laws (laws that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons). These tables do not show (observed) correlations between gun ownership and crime rates, which is what your claims (and the Harvard studies) are about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all, they discuss the standardized coefficient which is not used in a singular, linear regression. Looking at the results section I think you might be confusing multiple year regressions with multiple variable regressions. What makes it clear to you that they ran these two independent variables separately?
    Use of standardized variables is not limited to multiple linear regression. Like I said, they standardized the independent variable in each model so as to compare the Beta values between the two regression models, each containing a single independent variable. From page 987 in the paper: "It is, of course, possible that the findings could be “explained” by other variables; our regressions contain only one independent variable."

  16. #136
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    There is a significant difference in saying that no relationship was found by several different studies AND that a relationship found over and over again by several different studies should be discounted because of the methodologies used by those studies.
    I think you are misunderstanding the study. It reviewed the available research data for a correlation between the two. It notes that while the studies claim a relationship, they did not put much weight on the claims due to methodological error. IE, they were unable to find support for the claim that there is a relationship when they reviewed the available data. IE the data does not support that there is a relationship, therefore the null hypothesis is not rejected and...


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod
    But your claim isn't that the study "finds significance in the number of times firearms are used to defend against other crimes."
    Perhaps you misread the quote. I pointed out that they found "significance" (IE statistical significance) between the reduction of gun laws and the reduction of crime rates for "violent crime," "murder" and "rape."


    Quote Originally Posted by alex62303 View Post
    To support this claim, you first quote the third paragraph on page 54: however this paragraph does not state that there is no relationship. Instead, it says previous studies have found significant positive correlations between the two variables when comparing data across countries, and it points out the need for additional research to verify reliability of the results.
    I think I responded to this with Rod. The study here is looking at the available literature, validating findings and suggesting further research necessary, if any. Their null hypothesis for all the studies mentioned is that there is no relationship, with the alternate hypothesis being that there is a relationship. This study points out that while they claim there is a relationship, the data provided does not support that claim (IE we put little weight...). Given that, they discount the finding of rejection of the null hypothesis and therefore support it, since we know that in absence of data to reject a null hypothesis that is what we do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    Then you quote the Executive Summary, last paragraph on page 5: here a lack of correlation is mentioned for the US. It doesn't mention though that this is based on longitudinal studies. How did you infer that? Which studies are you talking about?
    Because the context of the comment refers to their collection of studies over a long period of time. They are summarizing their conclusion here of the research which was methodologically a longitudinal study.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    To support these claims, you refer to the tables in chapter 6. However, these tables show (calculated) changes in crime rate with or without right-to-carry laws (laws that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons). These tables do not show (observed) correlations between gun ownership and crime rates, which is what your claims (and the Harvard studies) are about.
    You'll notice however that in this study, in the studies they reference and in the Harvard Studies that the carry rate is a proxy used for gun ownership. Either it is accepted here, or the data from all of these studies together must be discounted.



    Quote Originally Posted by Alex
    Use of standardized variables is not limited to multiple linear regression. Like I said, they standardized the independent variable in each model so as to compare the Beta values between the two regression models, each containing a single independent variable. From page 987 in the paper: "It is, of course, possible that the findings could be “explained” by other variables; our regressions contain only one independent variable."
    You had me confused for a second, since the paper is only 4 pages long I had a hard time referencing it. ;-) I think it is important to get the whole sentence quoted.

    "It is, of course, possible that the findings could be “explained” by other variables; our regressions contain only one independent variable, a measure of gun availability."
    The independent variable is "gun ownership," not "an individual proxy for gun ownership." They are referring to the fact that they didn't control for other variables, such as economic situation, culture, etc. not that they only used one variable as a stand in during each regression.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #137
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    You can never get rid of guns completely. You can only make it illegal. But not everyone follows the law. The only people who would keep their guns are the people who are willing to break the law. If they try to get rid of guns, innocent people will be defenseless against the people who keep their guns illegally.

 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe guns kill people?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 12:51 PM
  2. Moral Dilemma: To Kill Him or not to Kill him
    By Idunno in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
  3. Guns and Voters
    By Slater in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Zombies With Guns...Can They Or Can't They
    By zombiewithguns in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM
  5. How many guns do you own?
    By Atticus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •