You absolutely did not answer them. You left the posts without any response whatsoever despite continuing to regurgitate your emotion laden talking points. You have consistently ignored or discounted mathematical facts, and you claim to be the logical side of this argument? Really?
This is an emotional, not a logical argument. You are more likely to die as either a victim of homicide or suicide if you have a gun in your house than if you do not. If your safety and the safety of your family is your primary consideration for gun ownership then owning one is a bad idea for the average American.
People don't want to hear this because they buy into the myth that you will heroically protect yourself or your family with this gun. The more likely outcome is that a family member will use it to kill themselves, someone will use it when an argument escalates out of hand, things like that. I'm sure you're telling yourself right now that those things wouldn't happen to you because unlike those idiots you're a responsible gun owner. I'm willing to bet that's what lots of people killed by their own guns thought too.
It's literally the most meaningful and useful statistic possible when deciding whether or not to own a gun.
I don't know who she is but since anecdotal evidence is irrelevant I don't really care either. I'm focused on meaningful facts.
Nope. It treats ALL gun owners the same by a single data point, that they own a gun. There is so much variance in safety from one location to another, the types of company one keeps, the violence where they live vs. other areas. It is far too broad, one very over generalizing statistic.
I'm having a difficult time finding the study, but isn't the data in that study from 1993? The peak of gun crime violence in USA? What would it look like now?
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
No. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of statistics and empirical research. The research on gun ownership explicitly controls for known risk factors like location, income, crime rates, etc. That's what regressions are for, after all. After controlling for those factors that you mention gun ownership is, once again, associated with significantly higher rates of death by homicide and suicide.
I mean did you seriously think all of these highly trained researchers and statisticians were just running descriptive statistics?
No it's actually from dozens, maybe even hundreds of different studies, a bunch of which I linked earlier in this thread.
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...ar-mandalay-bay.2520590/page-37#post-39102405
The findings are robust across a large range of different methodologies, areas of the country, etc. What I linked here is really only the tip of the iceberg and in many ways is common sense. If you have more lethal means around you people tend to die more.
No, it is a meaningless stat. No matter how you frame it, the reality is that there are some 100,000,000 gun owners in this country,and statistically almost none of them will be victims of a gun. If you don't have a knife, you're less likely to get cut in your home, too. That statistic has no meaning in any practical way.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,738
- 31,104
- 146
Which is exactly how policy works, and the only way that meaningful policy works. You're arguing to create gun owners as this super special class of people that need to handled differently from all other classifications of people when it comes to directing policy with meaningful data, and there is no factual or reasonable justification for doing so.
If it's about safety and potential to reduce harm, then you would make the same argument, for example, against standardized BAC when it comes to DUI enforcement: standardizing BAC is meaningless, because literally every single person metabolizes alcohol at different rates, based on weight, tolerance, food in their system. And even so, one with x BAC could certainly be more capable of operating a vehicle than other with the same BAC, simply due to experience. But we don't tolerate that because we recognize that this is dangerous and intolerable behavior in society.
Standards exist for a reason: safety and efficiency. You can't possibly pick and choose which special snowflake classes of people get to skirt certain laws and deserve special treatment. Hell, it expands government in terms of properly enforcing these regulations, and I know we don't want that.
Then be sure to tell all the victims of gun homicide and suicide how owning that gun made them safer.
Anecdotal evidence is stupid as we're discussing nationwide policy. The question that matters is if owning a gun makes the average American safer. It does not, in fact it does the opposite.
I didn't come to this forum as much in the past, not around the election. But, I thought I read some posts, weren't you pretty sure that statistically Hillary was likely to win the election, that is what the numbers showed?
So you first try to dismiss these findings as meaningless by saying they don't account for a bunch of things they in fact explicitly account for. When informed that you don't know what you're talking about you don't reconsider your position, you just shift to a different argument. This is a sign that you are arguing emotionally and not logically.
Regardless, your second point is equally wrong. The question is if purchasing a gun makes it more likely you will die and the answer is yes.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,407
- 16,798
- 136
Did you just conflate polling with actual studies?
Do you purposely like looking stupid? If so, it explains alot about you.
Yes, the numbers showed she was most likely to win the election. Notably however, 538 pointed out that Trump was only a perfectly normal polling error away from winning. Turned out they were right.
If you're trying to cast doubt on the entire field of statistics now I'm not interested in having that discussion.
You always start with the defensive name calling when something gets a little too close to home for you, when you know something has some truth to it you don't like.
I'm not throwing out all numbers. But you and I both know studies have been wrong (eat margarine, live forever, don't eat eggs) and shouldn't be taken at face value as absolute truth. When you look at the number of gun owners vs. number of gun owner deaths by firearm you're talking about factions of a fraction of a percent. It is a meaningless statistic, far too broad, and has zero practical application.
Good for 538, what about you and the statistics you backed? What about everyone else and their numbers? Point is, you've been wrong with numbers before, this is a silly meaningless statistic you're trying to push.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter