BOHICA: Guns in Home Increase Danger to Occupants, Survey Finds

[sendec]

It would appear that only one of the respondents to this thread have actually bothered to read any or all of the report. If "we" draft one indicating that Guns Are Good would'nt we want it to be thoroughly analyzed before people started bashing it?

Furthermore, stats are refuted by other stats, not by "Well, duh" or "You are wrong". Prove it.

 

[RavenVT100]

I read the study.

The sample is clearly biased, as it only took data from incidents where people had already been killed. It's very clever. You can point to this study and say "if you have a firearm in your house, you're more likely to be killed," when in actuality what the study's findings indicate is that if you are killed in your house, it is more likely that it would happen with a firearm if you have one. There's a huge difference.

I am sure there are people out there who will use this study to help "convince" people who lack critical thinking skills that guns are bad™.

 

[JohnMc]

Originally Posted by White Horseradish
What I don't understand here is the idiotic terms "gun homicide" and "gun suicide". Are people killed by gus somehow "deader" than the ones killed by other means?

It keeps the discussion very narrow, excluding all other forms of homicide & suicide.
What's interesting is that it allows them to lie by misdirection. The implication is that with a gun in the house, the murder and suicide rates are higher. But, what they've actually said, which is probably true, is that if there's a gun in the house and there's a homicide or suicide, that these are more likely to be done with a gun. Which doesn't say whether or not such homes have higher, lower, or same rates of ANY homicides and ANY suicides, only that the GUN ones are higher than other types in homes with guns.
I wonder what the HAMMER homicides rates are like in homes with hammers, vs hammerless homes?
JohnMC

 

[SMMAssociates]

It would appear that only one of the respondents to this thread have actually bothered to read any or all of the report. If "we" draft one indicating that Guns Are Good would'nt we want it to be thoroughly analyzed before people started bashing it?

Sendec:

I read all or a good part of the study and the NRA reviews back when this first appeared. The consensus then was that the author had selected the results, and then cooked the study to reflect them.

I would hope that "we" would not permit something this flawed to appear under "our" banner.

Furthermore, stats are refuted by other stats, not by "Well, duh" or "You are wrong". Prove it.

True.... However, sometimes the "kill the messenger" defense is acceptable when the message can be clearly shown to be false. It's one thing to put a good "spin" on something, and another thing entirely to ignore reality.

Besides, the only stats the anti's are interested in is the number of our guns that go into the furnace. Getting kids killed because they won't let Eddie Eagle into the classroom is fine with them.... 'Course they love to trumpet the body count thereof.

About all this study seems to show is that if you were killed by a firearm then you were likely to be killed by one.... That's not a statistic. It's a tautology. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who believe what they read in the newspapers.