The US 2nd Amendment.....

[FredRydr]

I'll take your post as your concession of your position though.

...you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.

Fred

[dneal]

You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.

I approach all arguments the same way. Are the premises valid? Is the logic sound? Does the conclusion necessarily follow? What is the competing argument, and how does it fare? It's why I don't bother with opinion pieces. Pro or con, they fail in the construction of logical argument and rely on selective premises, arguments from emotion, etc...

I agree that data and the math can be manipulated. I can trust that the data sets and calculations are valid, test them myself (and that level of compilation is beyond my expertise), or I can examine the data and conclusions reached by others using the same data sets. In all cases, I read the arguments that go along with the data and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

[dneal]

...you and others have chosen to turn this thread nasty though. I can play at that too.

Fred

You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

You didn't answer my questions. If you cannot support your opinion on the quality of the papers with a good rigorous methodology then you should say so. I will look at the papers when I get more time.

Also, to note, in my citing of the CDC data (not report) I was looking at the raw numbers of deaths caused by method. I haven't even begun to delve into possible risk factors. As epidemiology is a 'thing' for me and my work I don't approach it lightly or casually.

As a further aside I am a little interested in how any of the studies managed to measure non-events, i.e. something not happening due to a cause, and how you would apply that rationale to (in my cited example) motor vehicles. That is a very difficult question.


EDIT: For the lay person looking at statistics and epidemiology I would recommend reading the book Freakonomics to get a flavour of how counter-intuitive statistics can often seem, and how tricky they can be to interpret - even for experts.

I approach all arguments the same way. Are the premises valid? Is the logic sound? Does the conclusion necessarily follow? What is the competing argument, and how does it fare? It's why I don't bother with opinion pieces. Pro or con, they fail in the construction of logical argument and rely on selective premises, arguments from emotion, etc...

I agree that data and the math can be manipulated. I can trust that the data sets and calculations are valid, test them myself (and that level of compilation is beyond my expertise), or I can examine the data and conclusions reached by others using the same data sets. In all cases, I read the arguments that go along with the data and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

In order for a study to be deemed of good quality it has meet certain criteria. You still haven't explained how you evaluate the strengths and weaknesses. There is a range of existing tools that are used in this field. If you're not using any of them then your evaluation has little validity.

This is going to be a sticking point I'm afraid, but it's an important one if you want to discuss this kind of paper sensibly.

[TAYLORPUPPY]

Yes, I understand.
I get both sides of this, I really do.

There's the,
"What should come first, personal rights or community rights ?", that HughC nicely summarized.

Verses the,
'if guns are banned only the criminals will have them' /
"the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", that stonerman33 also nicely put forward.

What I'm saying is that this is a never ending rhetorical argument that blows up every 6 weeks or so when there's yet another mass shooting that, I think, can be solved by a country wide referendum.

Basically, let democracy work it out in a no holes barred, 2 go in, 1 comes out fight for gun freedom or gun control.

Power to the people; right on.

Cheers,
Noel

We are not a Democracy

[TAYLORPUPPY]

Ok, so to summarise, can't win, don't try.

As a non-American I didn't realize that the US doesn't have country wide referenda. So I guess to get any constitutional admendments through you'd have to wrangle all of the 50 states. Now it all makes sense why it's impossible to change direction on gun control.

I wonder how this will unfold over the next couple of hundred years as weapons become ever more sophisticated?

I'll end all this with a quote Arnie in The Terminator film, "Plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range".

Cheers
Noel

I thought you didn't have a side in this issue

[dneal]

I explained it, you just don't seem to like the answer. Shall I borrow a play from your book and just declare it an unrelated argument?

Are you interested in a discussion on guns and the 2nd amendment in the U.S.? Do you intend to read the links I posted? You did ask for some, after all.

[TAYLORPUPPY]

I want banana chocolate pudding.

-d

You wanted banana pudding a year ago

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm sorry, you were the one who has repeatedly stated that you want to stick with facts and not opinions. If you want to do that then I expect some scientific rigour. Not seen any yet.

In post #178 I gave the following set of examples. Obviously not an exhaustive list but one that gives a general idea of the approach to critical appraisal.

Did the papers examine the right cohort? Did they ask the right questions? Was their statistical analysis methodology appropriate? How did they eliminate various biases? How was the cohort chosen, what were the controls and comparison groups? What were the limitations on the studies? And so on. If you cannot answer these questions it means you didn't actually assess the papers. You only formed an opinion.

Did you examine these points (and other related ones)? C'mon, it's a simple enough question. Yes or no.

At the moment all I'm seeing is sidestepping.

[FredRydr]

You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.

There's no point with you (see above). And now you threaten to "turn this thread nasty" because you've pronounced others as having done so, where the only nastiness (if one could even call it that) is not accepting your premises.

Fred

[dneal]

At the moment all I'm seeing is sidestepping.

Curiously, that's what I'm seeing as well.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Rubbish. I'm quite happy to discuss these issues but it has to be on terms that are clearly defined to all. At the moment I am asking you to provide a statement that you appraised the papers (in your links) in the approved manner generally expected by the scientific community. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Considering that you are strident concerning facts over opinions this is somewhat perplexing

However, if you want to drop your assertion about being factual, and instead adopt the position that what you have said is actually just your opinion (which is far more likely given what I've read here), then we can discuss it within that framework.

I am not sidestepping anything. What I am trying to avoid is playing with your loaded dice.

[dneal]

You're welcome to offer something constructive, you know.

There's no point with you (see above). And now you threaten to "turn this thread nasty" because you've pronounced others as having done so, where the only nastiness is not accepting your premises.

Fred

If that's what you think, you can always stop participating. You do keep threatening it. You certainly haven't offered anything to advance the conversation, from even the first page.

I'm not emotionally invested in this topic. I'd like to discuss it. I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion. I'll still comment on them, as I see fit.

[FredRydr]

Face it; dneal will never acknowledge his circuitous method of supporting so-called "facts" with what are his opinions.

Empty, he's all yours if you want him, but to me, his method of "conversation" is a waste of your/our time. Jo mamma!

Fred

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion.

I said that I was commenting on the numbers and not the CDC's interpretation of them. That's quite different. Neither have I offered any hyperbolic opinion. I have simply asked questions and received little by way of answers.

And you are wrong to dismiss gun related suicides from overall gun related deaths. That's popularly referred to as massaging the data.

[dneal]

Rubbish. I'm quite happy to discuss these issues but it has to be on terms that are clearly defined to all. At the moment I am asking you to provide a statement that you appraised the papers (in your links) in the approved manner generally expected by the scientific community. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Considering that you are strident concerning facts over opinions this is somewhat perplexing

However, if you want to drop your assertion about being factual, and instead adopt the position that what you have said is actually just your opinion (which is far more likely given what I've read here), then we can discuss it within that framework.

I am not sidestepping anything. What I am trying to avoid is playing with your loaded dice.

Should we begin again then? Would you like me to start?

It is unfortunate that violence exists. Guns certainly do make doing violence easier. They also make defending against violence easier. I assert that the latter outweighs the former, and that guns in the hands of decent people creates enough risk in the mind of the miscreant that it causes them to avoid that risk. My justification for holding this belief is based primarily on the work of Lott and Kleck. I have searched for proof to the contrary, but have not found it yet. I am open to it.

A question that has been poorly presented is: "How do we minimize the ability of ill-intentioned or mentally disturbed people to kill or injure innocents with guns?". It is a question I do not have an easy answer to. Most efforts seem to involve restrictions and background checks, and I think there is strong evidence to indicate that those efforts have little effect. I am hesitant to agree with more or different restrictions, as they are likely to impact the ability to defend against violence. Some nations that have banned guns, or placed onerous restrictions on owning them, have seen a rise in violent crime. I am hesitant to compare nations, as that is also comparing different cultures; but I should not completely ignore apparent consequences.

The topic is charged with emotion, although I am not emotional about it. Many arguments use that appeal to emotion as their basis. "If it saves just one life", is a stereotypical example. Aside from the "argument from emotion" being fallacious, if you apply the rationale to other problems in some Kantian 'categorical imperative' fashion; the argument suddenly doesn't carry as much weight to the person advocating it. I.E.: "We should ban all guns. If it just saves one life...". Well, what about the plethora of things that also applies to? Guns are pretty low on the list for causes of death. To me, it is evidence of the insincerity of the person making the argument; and I therefore suspect their motives.

I do find old arguments tiresome. "The 2nd amendment uses the words 'militia', and 'regulated'", for example. While I admit the amendment is poorly worded, a little reading would quickly inform one what the relevant definitions and context are. There are ridiculous arguments about the founders only meaning muskets, which is equally absurd. Still, I do my part and try to present information for consideration.

I'm happy to expound on any of that, consider reasoned arguments, etc... I'm not interested in fallacious arguments designed to "win" a silly internet battle. I'm quite secure in my person and world view, and have no need to 'win' anything.

[dneal]

I'm not particularly interested in the random posting of statistics that are claimed to have no meaning, or the hyperbolic opinion.

I said that I was commenting on the numbers and not the CDC's interpretation of them. That's quite different. Neither have I offered any hyperbolic opinion. I have simply asked questions and received little by way of answers.

And you are wrong to dismiss gun related suicides from overall gun related deaths. That's popularly referred to as massaging the data.

In the spirit of my last post - I think it is important to distinguish suicides when considering possible gun policies relating to gun violence, if the "gun death" numbers are going to be used as a basis for developing those policies. Similarly, accidental shootings should be removed from consideration if one is determining approaches to gun use and gang violence. They should be included if "gun safety" is the focus. I don't see why this is a contentious issue.

[dneal]

Face it; dneal will never acknowledge his circuitous method of supporting so-called "facts" with what are his opinions.

Empty, he's all yours if you want him, but to me, his method of "conversation" is a waste of your/our time. Jo mamma!

Fred

And I'm the nasty one...

[Empty_of_Clouds]

dneal, you are starting the discussion with a premise which has not yet been established. You are also determined - it seems - to push violence and gun deaths together. However, in the course of an inquiry that is rather putting the cart before the horse.

I'm going to go back to the CDC data for a moment because it is simpler to grasp. Their data shows, according to available records, that the level of gun related deaths per 100,000 people is more or less the same as for vehicle related deaths. This isn't an opinion, it's a verifiable fact (at least for 2013). The situation surrounding each and every death in both cases has not been touched upon. That comes later.

It would be very interesting - and I cannot find a source for this yet - to see data that compares the usage times for both guns and vehicles. The reason why this is important is because even common sense will tell us that vehicles get used far more, by a far greater number of people every day, than guns. So, deaths per 100,000 doesn't necessarily tell us a great deal.

How about the likelihood of a death resulting from a single use of either? The purpose behind using a vehicle and using a gun are diametrically opposite. If I draw a gun it means I am intending to shoot something. If I get in my car it means (usually) that I wish to go somewhere. While it is possible that I could miss with the gun, or accidentally run someone down with the car, these outcomes are not the goal of use. I think that is quite important to remember, especially when you consider later on attempting to change attitudes in the public.

We also need to consider retrospective data, to see what if anything has changed over the last (say) 100 years. That's going to take a multidisciplinary approach to tease out all the changes.

So, when we have established that there may be a growing problem, or an existing problem which we would like to improve, then we can start looking at factors involved. Have we established this is a problem, truthfully?

With regard to gun suicides. They are important data. there is no point in comparing suicide rates between countries by method if one country clearly doesn't have the level of access to such methods as the other. So, in Japan the suicide rate may be higher per 100,000 people (say), but the number of gun related suicides may be proportionally lower because of the lack of access to guns. I'm guessing here as I haven't seen the figures, I could be counter-intuitively wrong. Assuming that I am not wrong then the argument that less guns would lead to less gun related suicides (but not necessarily less suicides overall) seems quite reasonable.


At the moment I am not convinced that we have defined the problem sufficiently well.

[dneal]

The embedded premise is something I have been trying to avoid, and get others to avoid as well. I am actually trying to distinguish gun deaths from gun violence deaths (and gun violence in general, I suppose, because it does not always result in death). My impression has been that people have been compiling them, and I assumed you were as well.

I agree with you that is what the CDC data shows.

I also agree with your third paragraph. I will reiterate that guns do seem to prevent 800k - 3M (depending on the source) criminal acts per year. I think that also constitutes "use", and they're termed "defensive gun uses". Note that the gun does not always have to be fired. Often times simple presentation de-escalates a situation. Lastly, Lott's thesis is that criminals knowing some members of the public are armed, but not knowing which ones; creates a 'blanket' or 'bubble' of protection for all as it causes the potential aggressor to choose otherwise. I think that constitutes "use" in some manner.

People use guns for all sorts of reasons. Yes, the intent is to "shoot"; but that does not mean it is always to cause death or injury to another human. Hunting is one example, although death of the animal is the goal. Target, or recreational shooting is another; and death is not the purpose. The likelihood of death to a human is greatly diminished in the latter two cases.

Regarding retrospective data and what has changed, I concur completely. This is the hardest thing to identify. We used to buy guns at the hardware store, with no background checks. I drove to school with guns in the rack of my truck (as did many others), and no one gave it a second thought. That's only 30 something years ago. I wonder if things are really more "dangerous", or if we have become more hypersensitive. What role does the 24/7 national news play? I suspect mass-drugging of the population with psychotropics within the last few decades plays a role. It is a complicated issue, to be sure.

I think there is a problem, but I'm not sure of the severity - i.e.: does it warrant attention? There is a loud anti-gun movement determined to "solve" it, and the equally loud pro-gun movement in response. Both of which only leads to the politicization and irrational influence on the discussion.

I agree that it stands to reason that less guns would lead to less suicide by gun. My problem with including gun suicides is only when addressing any gun "problem". The numbers are usually included by the anti-gun position, which I think is disingenuous. Suicide should be dealt with as its own topic, and not lumped into any gun debate, IMHO.

Yes, I agree that we have not defined the problem; and that was the source of my consternation with the earlier discussion with Jar. The fact that there was a problem in need of a solution seemed to be the imbedded premise, but no clarification of what specifically was the problem (i.e.: school shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, etc...) I think any of those (or others) need to be addressed individually, after assessing if they are indeed problems given the low frequency with which they occur. That is not to diminish the tragic nature.