RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride

RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 12:11:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The evidence seems to suggest the opposite... The Kellerman study and generalizations drawn therefrom have been widely criticized. Both the case studies and control groups in this study were socially and demographically unrepresentative of the areas studied or of the nation as a whole. The groups had exceptionally high incidence of social dysfunction and instability. For example, 52.7% of case subjects had a history of a household member being arrested, 24.8% had alcohol-related problems, 31.3% had a household history of illicit drug abuse, 31.8% had a household member hit or hurt in a family fight, 17.3% had a family member hurt so severely in a family fight that medical attention was required. Both the case studies and control groups in this study had very high incidence of financial instability. For example, both case subject and control heads of household had a median Hollingshead socioeconomic score of 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the highest level of socioeconomic status). These are factors that would expectedly be associated with higher rates of violence, including homicide. The subjects and controls did not even reflect the racial profile of the studied counties; 62% of the subjects were Black compared with 25% of the overall population of the three studied counties. The unrepresentative nature of the case and control groups undercut the authors' attempts to generalize from this study to the nation at large. The results cannot even be generalized to the counties studied because both the case and control groups did not even represent the ethnic or socioeconomic diversity of the counties studied. With so many complex variables, the authors should have used multiple logistic regression models, but, with their a priori bias, used only one logistic regression model. Interestingly, according to the authors' own data, guns were next to last in importance of the "risk factors" studied. Alcohol, living alone, family violence, and renting one's home held more risk than guns according to the authors' calculations, yet the most important risks were barely mentioned in the publicity or the authors' discussion. [See Graph 8: -- "Kellermann's Homicide Odds Ratios"] It appears that the authors were more concerned about generating a headline-grabbing "factoid," exaggerating gun risk, than about accurately or honestly assessing the risks of the dysfunctional populations studied. ~Source Also of interest, see Kleck: What Are the Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home? K.

DomKen -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 1:44:39 PM)
So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely."

BamaD -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 2:17:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely." How could they be "top researchers" if they use such flawed criteria? That's right, it is anti gun so if they drew names out of a hat that would be brilliant research. And you forget that guns were very low on their list of causes so they don't even say what you want them to say. Kleck is so well respected that he has caused anti gun intellectuals to admit that his stats are convincing (though like you they don't let a little things like facts effect their views).

DomKen -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 4:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely." How could they be "top researchers" if they use such flawed criteria? Because their criteria isn't flawed just because some random dude says it is? Looking at their research it looks quite good to me and the NEJM has not retracted it and has been 21 years and the pro gun nuts have been whining about the study ever since it came out so if it really was flawed they would have by now. quote: That's right, it is anti gun so if they drew names out of a hat that would be brilliant research. And you forget that guns were very low on their list of causes so they don't even say what you want them to say. Kleck is so well respected that he has caused anti gun intellectuals to admit that his stats are convincing (though like you they don't let a little things like facts effect their views). I already dealt with Kleck. You just didn't like it. the guy is a pro gun guy and his "study" was a phone survey with no attempt to verify if the claims made had any relationship to reality. The fact is that the survey is a total outlier compared to all other studies in the field so most other researchers in the field ignore it.

BamaD -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 4:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely." How could they be "top researchers" if they use such flawed criteria? Because their criteria isn't flawed just because some random dude says it is? Looking at their research it looks quite good to me and the NEJM has not retracted it and has been 21 years and the pro gun nuts have been whining about the study ever since it came out so if it really was flawed they would have by now. quote: That's right, it is anti gun so if they drew names out of a hat that would be brilliant research. And you forget that guns were very low on their list of causes so they don't even say what you want them to say. Kleck is so well respected that he has caused anti gun intellectuals to admit that his stats are convincing (though like you they don't let a little things like facts effect their views). I already dealt with Kleck. You just didn't like it. the guy is a pro gun guy and his "study" was a phone survey with no attempt to verify if the claims made had any relationship to reality. The fact is that the survey is a total outlier compared to all other studies in the field so most other researchers in the field ignore it. And the CDC study that included 25 year olds killed in the commission of crimes as child victims of gun violence hasn't been retracted either, so non-retraction proves zilch. Pro gun people haven't been whining, they have been pointing out flaws, not the same thing, but nobody would expect you to know the difference. And you pointed out that in Klecks first paper he stated that guns cause an increase in crime so not he hasn't always been pro gun, he became pro gun when he studied the facts. Don't make us embarrass you again with this.

DomKen -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 5:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely." How could they be "top researchers" if they use such flawed criteria? Because their criteria isn't flawed just because some random dude says it is? Looking at their research it looks quite good to me and the NEJM has not retracted it and has been 21 years and the pro gun nuts have been whining about the study ever since it came out so if it really was flawed they would have by now. quote: That's right, it is anti gun so if they drew names out of a hat that would be brilliant research. And you forget that guns were very low on their list of causes so they don't even say what you want them to say. Kleck is so well respected that he has caused anti gun intellectuals to admit that his stats are convincing (though like you they don't let a little things like facts effect their views). I already dealt with Kleck. You just didn't like it. the guy is a pro gun guy and his "study" was a phone survey with no attempt to verify if the claims made had any relationship to reality. The fact is that the survey is a total outlier compared to all other studies in the field so most other researchers in the field ignore it. And the CDC study that included 25 year olds killed in the commission of crimes as child victims of gun violence hasn't been retracted either, so non-retraction proves zilch. link? quote: Pro gun people haven't been whining, they have been pointing out flaws, not the same thing, but nobody would expect you to know the difference. Yes, I know the difference and when I point to actual flaws in your cherished "studies" you deny that they exist. Remember when you tried to palm off that silly column from that website as if it was an actual scientific study? quote: And you pointed out that in Klecks first paper he stated that guns cause an increase in crime so not he hasn't always been pro gun, he became pro gun when he studied the facts. Don't make us embarrass you again with this. You're still misreading that.

cloudboy -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 6:11:00 PM)
Well said, I think I'll stick with the NE Journal of Medicine. People are rarely shot in the home, on the porch, or in the yard when there's no gun in the house.

BamaD -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/4/2014 6:29:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So we have top researchers published in the most respected journal in its field versus some website... And just because some gun nuts got their panties in a bunch doesn't actually qualify as "widely." How could they be "top researchers" if they use such flawed criteria? Because their criteria isn't flawed just because some random dude says it is? Looking at their research it looks quite good to me and the NEJM has not retracted it and has been 21 years and the pro gun nuts have been whining about the study ever since it came out so if it really was flawed they would have by now. quote: That's right, it is anti gun so if they drew names out of a hat that would be brilliant research. And you forget that guns were very low on their list of causes so they don't even say what you want them to say. Kleck is so well respected that he has caused anti gun intellectuals to admit that his stats are convincing (though like you they don't let a little things like facts effect their views). I already dealt with Kleck. You just didn't like it. the guy is a pro gun guy and his "study" was a phone survey with no attempt to verify if the claims made had any relationship to reality. The fact is that the survey is a total outlier compared to all other studies in the field so most other researchers in the field ignore it. And the CDC study that included 25 year olds killed in the commission of crimes as child victims of gun violence hasn't been retracted either, so non-retraction proves zilch. link? quote: Pro gun people haven't been whining, they have been pointing out flaws, not the same thing, but nobody would expect you to know the difference. Yes, I know the difference and when I point to actual flaws in your cherished "studies" you deny that they exist. Remember when you tried to palm off that silly column from that website as if it was an actual scientific study? quote: And you pointed out that in Klecks first paper he stated that guns cause an increase in crime so not he hasn't always been pro gun, he became pro gun when he studied the facts. Don't make us embarrass you again with this. You're still misreading that. You think that more crime leads to more guns which in turn leads to more guns is a pro gun stance. You think the sign says means the law says. And you think that he was seriously trying to injure me means we were just horsing around. Maybe you should take a remedial reading course and then get back to us.

Kirata -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/5/2014 3:26:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen their criteria isn't flawed just because some random dude says it is... That's precisely right. It's not just flawed because "some random dude" says so. It's flawed because it's flawed. The objections raised against Kellerman's methodology and conclusions are legitimate and fatal. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Looking at their research it looks quite good to me That says a great deal about you, but nothing whatsoever about the study. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I already dealt with Kleck... his "study" was a phone survey with no attempt to verify if the claims made had any relationship to reality. The fact is that the survey is a total outlier compared to all other studies in the field so most other researchers in the field ignore it. It pleases you to imagine that you've "dealt with" many things, but that doesn't mean that you have. You just make shit up, like you're doing here. Kleck and Gertz presented and reviewed the findings of 13 different studies of defensive gun use. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences found that... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year -- in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008... Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ~Source You have a nice day now. K.

DomKen -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/5/2014 2:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It pleases you to imagine that you've "dealt with" many things, but that doesn't mean that you have. You just make shit up, like you're doing here. Kleck and Gertz presented and reviewed the findings of 13 different studies of defensive gun use. And what did that show? That there phone survey was an outlier just like I said. Why did you feel the need to prove yourself so wrong? quote: Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences found that... Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year -- in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008... Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies. ~Source You have a nice day now. Do you not know what ranges mean? they didn't exclude Kleck so they got the high end of the range. Exclude the unverified phone surveys and other terrible methodologies and you get the much lower figures that has always been the case.

BamaD -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/5/2014 3:33:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Well said, I think I'll stick with the NE Journal of Medicine. People are rarely shot in the home, on the porch, or in the yard when there's no gun in the house. And they aren't carved up like a Christmas turkey if there are no knives. They can't be clubbed to death if there are no clubs. They can't be burned to death if there are nothing to set the fire with. If you accept this study as gospel you have to accept that those things I mentioned, violence in the home and drug usage are greater problems and causes than guns as that is what the study says.

Kirata -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 1:01:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what did that show? That there phone survey was an outlier just like I said. Why did you feel the need to prove yourself so wrong? You're making shit up again. Their finding wasn't an outlier. Other surveys, too, found DGUs in the range of 2 to 3+ million per year. Moreover, their paper recognizes the difficulties involved and doesn't push the higher numbers. Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. ~Source quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you not know what ranges mean? they didn't exclude Kleck so they got the high end of the range. You're making shit up again. Kleck's survey wasn't the only high estimate. At least two other were higher. The problem is that you don't know what intellectual honesty means. K.

DomKen -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 5:01:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen And what did that show? That there phone survey was an outlier just like I said. Why did you feel the need to prove yourself so wrong? You're making shit up again. Their finding wasn't an outlier. Other surveys, too, found DGUs in the range of 2 to 3+ million per year. Moreover, their paper recognizes the difficulties involved and doesn't push the higher numbers. Since as many as 400,000 people a year use guns in situations where the defenders claim that they "almost certainly" saved a life by doing so, this result cannot be dismissed as trivial. If even one-tenth of these people are accurate in their stated perceptions, the number of lives saved by victim use of guns would still exceed the total number of lives taken with guns. ~Source quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Do you not know what ranges mean? they didn't exclude Kleck so they got the high end of the range. You're making shit up again. Kleck's survey wasn't the only high estimate. At least two other were higher. The problem is that you don't know what intellectual honesty means. K. No, dumbass. You don't know what outlier means. When you have 13 data points and 10 cluster in a group and 3 are way outside that group then all 3 are outliers and suspect. It doesn't make the 3 right no matter how much you wish it were so.

cloudboy -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 6:28:37 AM)
It's also common sense that you have to be 100 times more careful, cautious, and paranoid with a gun in the house than you do without one. This changes somewhat if you live alone and don't have guests over.

lovmuffin -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 7:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy It's also common sense that you have to be 100 times more careful, cautious, and paranoid with a gun in the house than you do without one. This changes somewhat if you live alone and don't have guests over. WoW, 100 times more careful and cautious. Does locking them up in a safe equal 100 times more ? Now that I'm 100 times more paranoid I think my wife is trying to kill me, I must shoot her[8\|]

Musicmystery -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 7:22:30 AM)
Why wouldn't locking them in a safe make you safer, not more vulnerable? You're deliberately distorting his point, agree or not. In fact, it's the gun people who keep telling me they stress, teach and preach safety safety safety.

lovmuffin -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 7:49:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Why wouldn't locking them in a safe make you safer, not more vulnerable? You're deliberately distorting his point, agree or not. In fact, it's the gun people who keep telling me they stress, teach and preach safety safety safety. It was the 100 times thing that sounds so silly like as if no one knows if you have kids around to take precautions. It's a good thing cloudboy was here to give us all such great advice[8D] To say 100 times more paranoid is absurd.

Musicmystery -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 8:01:24 AM)
I suppose. I wonder more about the many incidents where the guns were not adequately secured and children gained access and did harm. Or where parents accidentally shot their children, suspecting they were intruders. Or when criminals come to steal the guns. Apparently, there are those who need the advice.

TheHeretic -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 8:59:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen No, dumbass. You don't know what outlier means. When you have 13 data points and 10 cluster in a group and 3 are way outside that group then all 3 are outliers and suspect. It doesn't make the 3 right no matter how much you wish it were so. So what you are saying then is that since the overwhelming majority of legally owned guns will never be involved in any sort of criminal effort, the incidents where they are so used are outliers, and must be suspect in the generalizations about the whole. Thank you for such refreshing (if completely unintentional) honesty. Dumbass, indeed.

lovmuffin -> RE: Justice for the family of Reneisha McBride (9/6/2014 9:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I suppose. I wonder more about the many incidents where the guns were not adequately secured and children gained access and did harm. Or where parents accidentally shot their children, suspecting they were intruders. Or when criminals come to steal the guns. Apparently, there are those who need the advice. Yes, some need the advice but most of them likely wouldn't heed it anyway. Same for the advice given for precautions on all the other things stupid parents could do to help keep their kids safer. Teach them to look both ways before crossing the street, don't get into a car with a stranger, put child safety devices on reachable cupboards containing poison shit, keep a freakin eye on the toddlers so they don't put small objects in their mouths or fall down stairs or out windows and all the rest of it. Teach them they can't really fly like superman so don't try it by jumping off from high places.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875