Temple rude toter attacks youths with gun asking for money. CCer and one youth wounded...

[ileus]

http://www.guns.com/temple-student-packn-gun-and-ccw-fires-back-at-robber-wounded-gunfight-2.html


Sophomore Temple University student Robert Eells, 21, was hanging outside his off-campus apartment having a smoke with friend around 1:30 a.m. Monday morning when several street thugs approached him.

The thugs demanded that Eells give them his money. Eells refused.

~~~~~~~~~Shoot one the others straighten up.~~~~~~~~~~

[fascisthunter]

1. stupid

is a life really worth the money you have on yourself. If so, you place a price on human life's head. How much are you worth? Talkin' money here...

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

14. So your advice is to submit, and hope they won't hurt you?

Is that also your advice to women threatened with rape? Do whatever the guy wants, and maybe he won't hurt you?

Or course, there's the little fact that many robberies (or rapes) end with the attempted murder of the victim anyway.

[iverglas]

55. rape! rape! rape!

Or course, there's the little fact that many robberies (or rapes) end with the attempted murder of the victim anyway.

Actually, there's the actual fact that a minute percentage of rapes/sexual assaults end in any physical harm to the victim at all, let alone death.

That's because a majority of sexual assaults suffered by women and girls are committed by their intimates or acquaintances: fathers, other family members, spouses, former partners, dates, co-workers and friends.

But let's conjure up the bogeyman rapist at every opportuity. Serves two purposes well, doesn't it?

Makes gun militants look like they really care about women.

And makes sure that women (a) continue to enjoy free-floating fear of the big wide world, which does tend to make women stay in their place, and (b) are more likely to buy into the gun militant agenda and join in the agitation for everyone to be able to tote guns with them wherever they go.

It's not like there isn't method in this malarkey.

[Union Scribe]

75. "a minute percentage of rapes/sexual assaults end in any physical harm to the victim at all"

I guess the, you know, violent sexual assault itself doesn't count?

[iverglas]

88. you're right

me: a minute percentage of rapes/sexual assaults end in any physical harm to the victim at all

you: I guess the, you know, violent sexual assault itself doesn't count?

Gosh, did you see the word "violent" in what I wrote? No? How come it's in your reply?

My statement was clear and accurate. A minute percentage of sexual assaults end in any physical harm to the victim at all. Did you want to refute that? If so, too bad you didn't try.

Do you consider yourself to have been physically harmed when you have sexual intercourse? Does your (forgive the assumption) female partner?

Sexual assaults are sexual acts performed on another person without that person's consent. This does not mean that they necessarily involve physical harm. Just as many other assaults do not involve physical harm: they are acts of physical contact committed without consent. Most common assaults do not involve physical harm (if they do, they are called a different offence: assault causing bodily harm, wounding, etc.). Most sexual assaults do not involve physical harm.

Most sexual assaults are committed by persons known to the victim. The offenders do not have the intent of causing physical harm. They have the intent of exploiting and controlling the victim. Causing physical harm would be against their own interests in many cases, since these offenders often depend on the ambiguity they are able to conjure up regarding consent.

I just thought I'd point out to the world that you understood what I said perfectly. If you didn't, of course, I hope that helps.

In case you need further help, this is how the Criminal Code of Canada deals with sexual assault (which covers all sexual assaults against persons of both sexes by a person of either sex) -- there are graduated levels of punishment, including mandatory minimums where firearms are involved:

Sexual assault

271. (1) Every one who commits a sexual assault is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm

272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;
(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;
(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.

Aggravated sexual assault

273. (1) Every one commits an aggravated sexual assault who, in committing a sexual assault, wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

So obviously, there are sexual assaults causing bodily harm and sexual assaults not causing bodily harm.

All clear now?

[TheWraith]

152. So being raped isn't "bodily harm" in and of itself?

I tend to disagree with that, as I suspect would most rational people.

[iverglas]

158. you've heard of "asked and answered"?

A sexual assault is an assault that involves sexual contact.

Bodily harm is harm to the body.

Seeing it at all?

If you want someone to have sexual intercourse with someone, and they do so, that person has not assaulted you.

If you want someone to pick you up and move you across a room, and they do so, that person has not assaulted you.

In either case, if you do not want the person to do so, then if the person does so they have assaulted you.

In neither case has the person caused you bodily harm.

Getting it?

A sexual assault is a serious assault, and a serious offence, even if no bodily harm is caused.

Similarly, locking someone in a room for a month, even if the person is fed on luxury foods and provided with all the comforts of home, is a serious offence.

An offence does not have to involve bodily harm in order to be serious.

And your efforts to portray me as minimizing the seriousness of sexual assault by stating the obvious fact that it does not necessarily involve bodily harm fail.



html fixed

[Glassunion]

116. A side note in regards to intimates.

In a study they found that 75% of spousal shootings in the city of Detroit where the wife killed the husband, no charges were filed. As they were deemed self defense.

[iverglas]

144. and this has to do with sexual assault ...

... how?

The reference here was to sexual assault, not intimate partner homicides. Women who kill their partners in self-defence are not doing it to avoid sexual assault.

On another side note, how the hell many spousal shootings are there in Detroit in a year? Good god.

[TheWraith]

150. How many women would you say should be murdered by their abusive husband?

Since after all, they shouldn't own guns, how many of those women... pushed to the breaking point... do you think would be dead right now if they hadn't had access to a firearm?

[iverglas]

160. I despair, I really do

What the fuck are you talking about?

Since after all, they shouldn't own guns, how many of those women... pushed to the breaking point... do you think would be dead right now if they hadn't had access to a firearm?

Probably not very many if any, actually.

The most common "self-defence" situation in the case of spousal/partner homicides by women involves the disorder referred to as "battered wife syndrome", which involves the particular individual's reasonable perception of the threat to her life, rather than an actual imminent threat to her life.

But if you have the facts of these particular homicides, let us know.

Meanwhile, I'm still wondering: 75% of how many? And what's the source of this knowledge that you imparted so casually?

[TheWraith]

149. So you do advocate that a woman submit to a rapist, then?

Either you advocate that, or you allow for the fact that violent self defense is the right thing to do. Seems simple to me.

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

165. It's called taking the civilized moral high ground...

[iverglas]

198. it's called being a demagogue

and asking "questions" like the one I was "asked" for no purpose other than to portray one's interlocutor a stupid/evil when it is one's own action that is stupid/evil.

I pointed to, what, 5 self-protective measures that I used myself in an incident where I was the victim of a violent crime.

Why would someone insinuate that I recommend "submitting" to sexual assault?

In some instances, very definitely: when one has a knife to one's throat, when one has been overpowered and has no means of escape, yes, offering physical resistance would very possibly be foolhardy and result in injury or death.

Those situations are rare in the universe of sexual assault. For girls and women who are sexually abused or assaulted by family members or people in their circle of acquaintance, there are various things they can do to avoid the assault or avoid having it be repeated. In virtually no case does this involve carrying, brandishing or using firearms.

And once again, the constant refrain in these parts -- that women oughta tote guns and use them to avoid rape! rape! rape! -- just shows what those singing it really care about. And it ain't girls and women who are subject or vulnerable to sexual assault.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

244. We must being supporting different rape victims

[iverglas]

245. yeah

I'm with the real ones, you're with the others.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

246. More insults?

My wife and I have many years of support for such victims...how does your snarkiness help them?

The survivors sessions, the middle of the night rescues, the physical security, they all count for nothing in your book? It could be that we just saw the more raw and dangerous side of things. Facts are, few if any rape victims are unharmed.

There is more to life than your online snide comments, but feel free to continue to impeach yourself with such crap.

[iverglas]

247. more crap from you

Facts are, few if any rape victims are unharmed.

Utter and complete bullshit. The fact that you, sez you, have encountered a few who were harmed ... how does that go? Anecdotal evidence?

All you're doing is demeaning the many, many women who are victims of sexual assault who do not suffer injury. Not real rape victims, I guess. Only the ones who are injured count in your tally.

You have more stories than the naked city, you do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

249. So sexual assualt is not physical harm?

I saw you try and split that hair earlier...it doesn't work

[Atypical Liberal]

250. Sexual assault definitely is phyiscal harm. Mental also.

Not only does sexual assault carry the possibility of pregnancy and disease, it is almost always accompanied by a physical struggle.

Then, of course, there are the mental wounds carried for a lifetime.

[iverglas]

258. I see somebody's been learning at the young master's knee

Not only does sexual assault carry the possibility of pregnancy and disease

Indeed. If disease results, for instance, an appropriate charge can be laid. There was a recent conviction here of someone who engaged in sexual intercourse and knew he was HIV positive. Consensual sexual intercourse at that, so a fortiori if it was not consensual.


it is almost always accompanied by a physical struggle

And there we go with the demeaning stereotypes that are exactly why so many girls and women do not report sexual assaults.

[iverglas]

257. if you know the answer

why are you wasting your time?

[PavePusher]

255. Wow.

We've seen some wildly inventive vile shit from you before, but that seriously takes the cake.

I can not see at all why you are still welcome here.

[iverglas]

259. nice attempt at a personal attack, but facts are facts

You go find your own if you can. Here are mine.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm

The classifications are based on the level and type of force used.

Police report an increase in sexual assaults for the first time since 2005

Similar to physical assaults, sexual assaults are also differentiated based on the severity of the incident. Police reported over 22,000 sexual assaults in 2010, the vast majority (97%) of which were classified as level 1, the least serious of the three forms of sexual assault (Table 4).

For the first time since 2005, police reported an increase in the rate of sexual assault, up by 5% overall. While increases were seen among all three levels, the rise in the overall rate was driven primarily by an increase in level 1 sexual assaults.

It should be noted that police-reported data likely under-estimate the true extent of sexual assault in Canada, as these types of offences are particularly unlikely to be reported to police. According to self-reported victimization data from the most recent General Social Survey, close to 9 in 10 sexual assaults were never brought to the attention of the police (Perreault and Brennan 2010). The most common reasons for not reporting sexual offences to police include feeling that the incident was not important enough, feeling that it was a private matter and dealing with the situation in another way (Statistics Canada 2011).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm

Police-reported crime for selected offences, Canada, 2009 and 2010
(figures are for 2009/2010)

Sexual assault - level 1 20,450 - 21/100,000 - 21,604 - 63/100,000
Sexual assault - level 2 - weapon or bodily harm 352 - 1/100,000 - 388 1/100,000
Sexual assault - level 3 - aggravated 119 - 0/100,000 188 - 1/100,000

Canadian law does not segregate "rape". However, you can be sure that offences that are reported to police -- the 21,000+ level 1 assaults -- were not all unwanted kisses. They were assaults that did not result in bodily harm.


http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/rev2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=326&Itemid=16

For many, the word “rape” conjures up images of a stranger behind a bush in a dark place with no one else around. In school we are taught to recognize stranger danger and how to say no to a mysterious figure. However, the reality of rape is very different and far more disturbing. Rape is most likely to occur, not with a stranger, but with someone you know and trust. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 55% of sexually assaulted women know their attacker. Acquaintance rape is a forced sexual assault committed by an individual whom you know: someone you just met, dated a few times, are in a committed relationship with, or are related to. The force involved can be physical, or implied with threats. Acquaintance rape is a violation of body and trust, but above all it is an act of violence – and it is wrong.

AS I SAID, rape is a serious offence. Not all serious offences involve bodily harm.

[Name removed]

294. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

71. I don't live in your paranoid world

I and millions of others live without the need to carry or own a gun. You have quite the imagination.

[PavePusher]

80. No, you depend on others carrying guns in your name.

i.e. "Law Enforcement"

Who offer no guarantees or even a hint that they might show up in time to defend you.

Is that what some people refer to as "enlightened"?

[fascisthunter]

82. yes... have a problem with that because the majority do the same?

It's an effort to live in a civilized society. I don't want your wild west mentality to fuck up society anymore than it already has been. You are making shit worse. And you aren't "enlightened."

[PavePusher]

99. Your translation of "civilized society" means that you want to force me...

to give up the means to protect myself when the police are demonstratably not able to do so, and you have not volunteered your personal time to provide security for me.

I'm not sure what's "civilized" about that, unless "civilized" is supposed to equal "authoritarian". And fuck that noise.

[fascisthunter]

108. Do you feel having a police force is authoritarian in and of itself?

Should we all just take matters into our own hands like some did in the wild west? Is this what you see as a freedom? To be judge and jury... "oops, shot the guy out of fear, thought he was a robber...oh well, I still have my freedoms, too bad it costs a life or the potential to take away life." Not sure you realize this, but it's hollywood bull crap that you will know how to use your weapon at any split-second. This is why we have a police force, trained to deal with those split seconds. Let the police deal with it if you can, it's ok, that won't make you a lemming, or helpless dweeb, etc. If you fear a robber may rob you in the middle of the night, fine, own a gun... that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is this twisted notion that civilized means authoritarian just because we tax payers pay taxes to fund trained professionals. Maybe we shouldn't have an army, navy, air force, etc. You and every citizen theoretically depends on them to fight against enemies of the state. So maybe the concept of having a military is also authoritarian. If only we lived in a black and white world.

Your ability to own a gun is not sacrosanct no matter how many times you claim it is. In the Constitution it states "well regulated militia".... regulated(authoritarian I suppose by your definition). Oh and militias locked their guns up for safety reasons and to deter guns from getting into the wrong hands. Why do you suppose they would do such a thing. Because we all have a responsibility to each other that goes beyond your freedom to own a gun. I prefer a balance... LIFE is sacrosanct, not a gun which takes it away from someone else.

If you want to talk about freedom, why not just leave your gun where you want? If someone prevented you from doing that, would you consider that authoritarian too? It is technically an infringement on your rights to do as you please. Why not buy a tank...? I promise no one will ever rob you. Where does it end, how far will you go in your argument against authoritarianism and why isn't your freedoms held in check in order to keep others safe from your own actions or MISTAKES? Maybe we should all be allowed to do as we please... no regulations on anything, a libertarian's utopian dream. No laws, no regulations, no law enforcement, no rules. Every man and women for him or herself. NOW THAT is FREEDOM!

Maybe you should read history and see what it was like to live in a world where you really had to protect yourself because there was no other protection around... that's history.

[jmg257]

111. You were on a roll till you started in with the Militia 'info'. Militias were

the people, who were mandated to supply and keep their own guns for the most part. Don't think they were all that worried about locking them up, or concerned with having the means to do so. Most of we, the people were compelled to be armed effectively (by their own means), so being armed was not only a right, but a duty...all this wouldn't go well with whatever point it is you are trying to say here.

And 'well-regulated' meant well functioning and trained to arms..basically well-exercised in military manuevers and the use of arms.

"Maybe you should read history"...highly recommended - if you are to refer to it so strongly.


BTW, 'the wild west' wasn't all that wild...might want to check on that too.

Oh..and check on the founder's thoughts on a standing army: "So maybe the concept of having a military is also authoritarian". They would certainly think so...'the bane of liberty' in fact, when it got too large - greater then the armed body of the people. And ESPECIALLY if, God forbid, the Militia was transformed into part of the same federal entity.

[fascisthunter]

125. I've Heard and Read about that Argument Regarding "Regulation"

I will give it more thought and better research though. Thank you for your reasonable response.

[jmg257]

130. I tell ya its sometimes a tough call.

I always refer to Hamilton in Federalist #29:

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

But there are other uses of the word 'regulations' re: the militia, including by Hamilton, and Luther Martin, which show the meaning COULD be the common meaning we normally think of. Just seems that 'well-regulated' always referred to 'well-functioning', & 'effective'...which is also shown by the main intent of the 2nd and the militia clauses, and the debates about them. But then it is true the Militia was always an entity 'of' a governmental body, so some sort of regulations would be implied!

Cheers!

[GreenStormCloud]

133. You have been reading too much Bellesides.

His awards were stripped from him because he made stuff up in his book. The militias all had guns at home. They kept their Long Rifles at home because they were also hunting guns. In fact, in Boston in 1774 the British decided to confiscate the guns that were in private homes. They were amazed that there were hundreds of guns in the city in people's homes.

Your really should read some real history.

BTW - You can quit beating that dead horse about the militia clause in the 2nd. SCOTUS has ruled - twice.

[PavePusher]

155. If I am attacked...

should I wait for the police to arrive, no matter what the circumstances, or should I "take matters into my own hands" and defend myself?

You advocate removing that Right/ability, in the face of evidence that police can not protect me, and offer no compensation. Yeah, that counts as authoritarian.

But your collection of straw men is impressive. Bet it beats the other kiddies hay-armies...

[gejohnston]

162. Just to pile on

The Militia Act of 1792 was the first individual mandate. It required you to buy a gun. Next time your ditto head uncle bitches about Obamacare, ask them if the Militia Act was also unconstitutional.
Why not buy a tank? Who are you talking to Koch brothers? Initial cost is in the millions. Then there is the crew, regular maintenance, and the fuel efficiency is non existent. Besides, there are $1,000 rockets that can take out your multi-million dollar tank.
Slippery slope? No one is talking about no society or institutions, simply pointing out that the police are not there for your personal safety, but to keep order and protect society at large.

[PavePusher]

100. Oh, and by the way, please support your assertion/insinuation....

that I am responsible for criminal activity.

Activiyt that has been trending downwards for some decades.

I guess that reduced crime rates equals "making shit worse" in your dialectic.

[fascisthunter]

121. guns make things worse, you feed the fire

and your guns = less crime is gun lobby propaganda.

[TheWraith]

154. More guns does not equal more crime. This is plainly obvious.

How else do you explain the fact that violent crime has dropped by a third in the last 18 years, while at the same time the number of guns available in the US has increased from 200 million to 300 million?

[PavePusher]

156. More straw men.

I did not claim that "more guns=less crime".

And you have not provided any evidence of your assertion.

[jmg257]

23. "One of them then brandished a gun and started firing at Eells and his friend"

Don't think it was all about money.

More about getting shot at.

[krispos42]

35. Give me your money. Right now.

Right now!


It it worth risking the ire of an anonymous internet poster by refusing?

Is it?

How anonymous am I?


Think about it... I used to be a mod. What information do mods have about you?


What has the Google let me know about you?


Can you risk it?

I'll PM you with PayPal info.
















I fully expect you to refuse... which means that you will then refute your own argument. :-)

[fascisthunter]

72. You have info on me because you were a mod? And why exactly did you bring that up?

Are you threatening me or telling me to watch what I post because you can give out my info? It is a very serious question!

[krispos42]

107. Doesn't matter.

The mere threat should have you whipping out your wallet and giving me the cash. After all, cash is replaceable, right?

By not doing that... by getting defensive over cash, delaying, withholding, protecting your own... you're defeating your own pious little statement up-thread.


Krispos42 1, facsisthunter 0

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




OF COURSE I'm joking! Not only did I sign a confidentiality agreement when I became a mod, which legally binds me to this day (much like the oath I took when I was a Census Enumerator does until I die), assembling some kind of private dossier on DUers sound about as appealing to me as cat vomit.

You're safe from me. I haven't been a mod in over a year and kept no records on members (other than some work I did in the Mod Forum organizing mods by name, real name, and location).


If I made you genuinely worried, I apologize. I was making a point, not a threat.

[fascisthunter]

118. Jesus man...that wasn't funny

I figured it was a passive aggressive threat and if anything it kinda pissed me off. You shouldn't state what you did, legally bound or not...

And no, I wouldn't have given you my money because your "threat" wasn't real enough to motivate me or scare me that much. However, if you held a gun at me and demanded I pay up, I'd do so, because my life is much more valuable than the cash I have. If you shot me afterwords, well then, you lose all freedoms and end up on the run or inevitably in prison, which is hell.

When I was 16, I immaturely had over $300 after being paid on a Friday evening, and had about another $300 in gold and silver... it was a dumb thing to do, especially in the town I lived in at that time. Two men, much older and bigger each had knives, one pointed at my abdomen, the other pointed at my throat. They demanded I give them my money, gold and silver, and so I did. They looked like two junkies who were extremely on edge.

Wanna know what else... I'm glad I didn't have a gun on me, because if I did, I might have taken a life or two, or worse, I may have had my own gun used on me, since I had no experience or training to deal with a stressful situation like that. It's one thing to lose your cool with your fists, having a gun is a liability to you, me and everyone else around us. THAT IS A FACT!

That gun, wasn't necessary... I'm alive still and more thankful I didn't take a life out of fear/panic, or pride, things we are all susceptible to regardless of what we say in hindsight. I also feel that way about people's lives in general and feel guns are a danger to everyone. Guns make the world more insecure... life is not a movie, and having a gun is no guarantee, or chance, it may instead be a huge mistake, which seems to be more common than guns being any form of security.

PS - no hard feelings from me. I believe your apology to be sincere.

[GreenStormCloud]

134. A gun is not a magic talisman.

It is a tool, and one must know how to use it. If one is liscened to carry then they should get training. Further you have to keep situational awareness. If you wait until the thugs knife is at your throat then it is too late. You have no guarantee that the thug won't kill you to increase his street cred, or to eliminate a witness, or simply for the thrill of it. They don't think very far in advance, but tend to life in the now.

If some one is a threat to me they will be shot because they are a threat, NOT for the reason that they decided to become a threat. I won't be fighting over what is in my wallet, but I will be fighting because my life has been threatened.

[krispos42]

163. It wasn't suppose to be funny.

We've established that there is a point where you, where people, do not take threats seriously.

Because it's not just the money. Giving the money is generally a de facto admission that you are powerless and in their control. That your personal well-being, short- and long-term health, and possibly your family is in the direct, immediate control of violent people with few scruples; that their actions are bound only loosely by the conventions that "regular" people live under; and that their motives are murky and may result in your death, crippling, or mutilation for reasons illogical and unfathomable.

Unlike you, I have never been in that sort of situation. I have also never put anybody in that situation and don't intend to (including you :-) ).

I also don't carry a concealed pistol. Not that I'm against it, but it's a big fuckin' responsibility, and a considerable investment in time and money to do it properly, and I'm essentially broke. I do carry a small folding knife, but let's face it, I'm far from Steven Segal.



When you were attacked, you did not have the option to carry a concealed gun for protection; you were too young. Nowadays I assume you choose not to; that is your choice and I cannot argue with your feelings or your decision to not carry concealed. If your heart is not in it, it's probably best you don't.

However, please note that if you had shot the two junkies putting knives at your body in the process of robbing you, it would take evidence of a most extraordinary sort for me to find you guilty in a court of law.

Also please note that you did not know if a gun was necessary until AFTER the robbery took place and you walked away unharmed. There are many dead or maimed people that found out DURING, when it was far to late to correct the situation.




PS: Thanks. :shrug: I hate feeling like a bully.

[fascisthunter]

226. Fair response Krispos... thanks

[iverglas]

232. the testosterone fumes are getting suffocating

Giving the money is generally a de facto admission that you are powerless and in their control.

No, it is not.

It is a decision made rationally on the basis of the available facts and on one's experience and knowledge: that in the presenting circumstances, one is less likely to be harmed if one hands over one's money.

If ending the day without being harmed is one's primary concern (and I submit that it is most people's), then one will choose one's course of action based on one's assessment of the available courses of action and determination as to which is most likely to achieve that goal.

I suppose that if one's primary concern is ending the day without looking like a wimp, one might make different decisions.

One might also make a different decision if one's assessment of the situation was that no matter what course of action one chose, one was likely not going to avoid being harmed, of course.

Rational people generally "admit" facts. And if the fact is that someone is in a position to cause one harm, that fact will probably be uppermost in a rational person's mind in deciding what to do.

[PavePusher]

256. Heh, looks like someone just proved your point....

while smugly thinking they did the opposite.

One of many reasons I love this site.... sigh. :loveya:

[SteveM]

36. Perhaps you miss-read. Let's go over it again,

After da thugs made a demand for money, and Eells refused:

"One of them then brandished a gun and started firing at Eells and his friend. Eells caught a round in the stomach."

Thugs did not brandish weapon, according to report, and Eells merely refused. THEN da thug pulled out a weapon and shot Eells.

All cleared up, now? For further credit, consider:

Would you give up your money to anyone blowhole who came up to you and demanded same? Even when no guns, knife, or weapon of any sort was in evidence?

For even more credit, read Gandhi on the duties of citizens when confronted by da thug.

[ThatPoetGuy]

2. Translation from right-wing to English --

"street thugs" is the right-wing term for Black teenagers. They always feel a need to dehumanize, to mask any ambiguity.

Here we have a 21-year-old college sophomore -- what's that about? -- who looks like a dangerous nutjob:



and has the preoccupation most popular among dangerous nutjobs.

My guess is, a lot more would come out about this story, if the police actually investigate it.

My guess is, also, that this shooter will consider this his moment of greatest glory, and spend his life trying to find other "street thugs" to shoot.

[rrneck]

3. Do you own a firearm? nt

[rl6214]

5. "Here we have a 21-year-old college sophomore -- what's that about?"

Not everyone has the finances or is exactly ready for college right away when they graduate from HS.

""street thugs" is the right-wing term for Black teenagers."

NOOO, street thugs is the term used for roaming gangs of youth that wander the streets just looking to cause trouble. I would label the soccer hooligans in England, street thugs.

[Straw Man]

7. Your guess?

My guess is, a lot more would come out about this story, if the police actually investigate it.

My guess is, also, that this shooter will consider this his moment of greatest glory, and spend his life trying to find other "street thugs" to shoot.

"Guess" is prohibitionist slang for "make shit up so that events will conform to my prejudices."

So you define "dangerous nutjob" as "as someone who fires back when fired upon." The sane thing to do would have been to lie down and die, I suppose.

[gravity556]

8. Wow. Lot of hate for a guy who didn't do anything wrong.

Other than refuse to submit to the demands of criminals. He's lucky he wasn't killed when the POS mugger opened fire on him, luckier he was able to return fire, lest the mugger decide to do in the witnesses. Now hopefully the CRIMINAL will end up with a nice gangrene infection so the cops can pick his ass up at the hospital. At least he won't be robbing people at gunpoint for a bit, caught or not.

Of course, I was a bit curious as to why the pro-criminal safety crowd takes the stance of presuming the guy that nearly got robbed and then got shot and called the cops is somehow the bad guy. Also curious as to how you just *know* that "street thug" meant "Black teenagers"(sic) and also why the victim's appearance means a fucking thing? I mean, hell, he has his permit, so he's jumped through the hoops to show that he's not a "dangerous nutjob"(sic), so while I concur that his haircut is rather ridiculous, I am unable to discern that he's a "dangerous nutjob". Care to elucidate? You seem to have access to facts not presented: "My guess is, a lot more would come out about this story, if the police actually investigate it.
My guess is, also, that this shooter will consider this his moment of greatest glory, and spend his life trying to find other "street thugs" to shoot."

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Your translation is giberish

Many people can not afford college these days. 21yo sophmores are quite common

There is no support for your claim that "street thugs" = "black teenagers". Thugs come in all colors and in all political stripes

Care to try again?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LawnKorn]

21. You actually know what the sophomore thinks?

and spend his life trying to find other "street thugs" to shoot

You absolutely know the sophomore wants to pursue taking another bullet in the stomach?

[X_Digger]

24. Oh my gosh, he's wearing glasses and SMILING! Of course he 'looks like a dangerous nutjob'!

Demagogue much?

[gejohnston]

33. I have no idea the race of the robbers

and I really don't care. You are assuming their race. How about referring to them as fucking asshole sociopaths that are willing to kill after being told no?

Ever been to college lately? Maybe he backpacked Europe before returning to school. Maybe he took a couple of years to find himself first. Maybe he did a couple of years in the army. With the new post 9-11 GI bill, there are a lot of middle aged freshmen.

[iverglas]

95. you're assuming that someone else is as blithely ignorant of facts

as you apparently choose to be.

Anyone with a mouse knows that the teenagers in question were African-American, and I have not the slightest smidgen of a doubt that our "da thugs" friend knew it as well as anyone else did.

[gejohnston]

139. Sorry I missed the pics

of the robbers in the link. I am not familiar of that part of Philly. I am not going to waste my time looking for pics of the robbers because I don't give a rat's ass about their race. The time line, yeah.

[SteveM]

38. "Nutjob?" Hell, he looks one of the guys in Peter and Gordon...

In case you are all hung up on argot, I use "da thug" so there will be no confusion that I include all violent criminals, okay? (BTW, the term "thug" comes from India.)

"My guess is, also, that this shooter will consider this his moment of greatest glory, and spend his life trying to find other 'street thugs' to shoot."

From time to time, people write in about these incidents, and try to find reasons why self-defense should not be employed, even when the attacker is shooting at a would-be victim. Usually, there is an undertone of "poor sick puppy" provided to da thug who commits attempted murder. However, your's is an outright PRO-THUG viewpoint and ANTI-VICTIM outlook, slathered over by some hot-wired race-card crap. At least you are honest about your rather stinky human outlook.

[iverglas]

60. yeah

And in the post above yours, "da thugs", that particular poster's particular charmng variation on that theme.

21, a second-year undergraduate student, studying psychology, and his facebook hobbies are, oh, guns and knives. And fast cars. Can anybody say "brat"? Most 21-year-old men studying psychology (at least of my acquaintance, admittedly many years ago) were able to offer a somewhat more respectable account of themselves.

Dangerous nutjob? Nah, I'd just say wanker. With guns. Who in the fuck wears a gun to have a smoke on the porch at 1:30 a.m.?

Pretty funny ... a video search for "rob eells" brought up a lot of Robb Wells ... the quintessential Trailer Park Boy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DRyDVPg6DY
"Season 1 Episode 1/Take Your Little Gun And Get Out Of My Trailer Park"
My chance to tout one of the funniest things ever on television again.


But here's the real thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BwgX2Os8mg

with the most liked comment: "Keep fucking with us. You negroes will learn the hard way."

Nobody has to be delicate at youtube.


Oh, by the way.

This guy's gun didn't actually protect him from anything, did it?


edit - I was somewhat negligent; I'd tried googling and facebook, but then I tried news.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/warrington/warrington-man-shoots-back-at-would-be-robber/article_cdf5decf-b2ac-504d-a169-abc463e0c1a6.html

Mack said as a young child Eells grew up in Abington, but after his parents divorced he moved with his mother to Warrington where he attended Central Bucks South. Eells spent two years at Bucks County Community College before transferring to Temple as a psychology major. He lives off-campus with five others and works in a nearby store.

[friendly_iconoclast]

65. Calling the victim of a violent crime a "wanker"? Classy

I noticed you had to come up with an anonymous comment from YouTube to get your associational fallacy on.

[iverglas]

69. calling someone who looks like he looks

and posts what he posts on Facebook a "wanker". But your nasty little perversion of what I said was entirely expected.

Anyone posting in this thread who didn't know the youths who attempted the robbery were African-American was just not trying.

The association being made by the use of the term "da thug" in this forum has long been blatantly obvious. I note recent attempts to divert attention from the association that was initially obvious. Makes no difference.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. "I don't judge people or their actions on the basis of newspaper reports."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x196856#196923

I take it that previous statement is now ...inoperative?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

78. in case you were too lazy to look

or it didn't serve your purposes to admit that you did:

http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Eells/624405923

Obviously written BEFORE this incident (along with his admiration of Sam Colt and Petraeus):

Basic Information

About Robert

the world looks different when your looking at it down the barrel of a loaded gun. whether thats good or bad depends on which end youre looking down

lately ive been pretty consumed with work and school, but im trying to make time for my bass guitar. as often as i can afford it i try to get to the firing range to shoot my rifle, too

Dunno, dunno. I don't know a single person in the world whose basic information on Facebook is about looking down the barrel of a loaded gun. And I just have to wonder, I do.

Oh, and forgive me, but, somebody with three years of post-secondary education who writes "your" for "you're"?

[PavePusher]

89. Stretching metaphor into insinuation...

At last, you have a new act!

Oh, wait....

[gejohnston]

98. and admiration of Leonardo da Vinci

Instead of Sam Colt, what if he put Kijirō Nambu or John Browning instead? Since he has a CCW, I would not be surprised he admires Colt.

[iverglas]

102. yeah, he was in a movie not long ago, wasn't he?

Deep thought, there.

[jmg257]

106. I had to think for a second...but man, that is funny! LOL! nt

[PavePusher]

87. But apparently it's O.K. to judge on "looks"....

"calling someone who looks like he looks"

[iverglas]

90. hey, when somebody goes to that much effort

to look the way they look -- yeah.

How does one get one's hair to do that, anyhow? Lot o' product?

We didn't use product in my day. Couldn't afford that kind of crap. Didn't put that kind of stock in artificial appearances. And these days, I don't hold with the environmental atrocities that all that shit represents. Just a fogey, I guess.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. I guess he shouldn't have been wearing that tight skirt....

[iverglas]

138. somebody tried to rob him because of his hairdo??

You really are reading something I can't see, aren't you?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PavePusher]

101. You made the insinuation.

Deal with it.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

290. "nasty little perversion"

Not even close. You get all bent out of shape over just about anything, don't you?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoeyT]

64. He looks like every college age poet I've ever known.

I mean...I hate bassists too, but I don't know if I'd call it the preoccupation popular among dangerous people. Sure they're irritating as hell, but they're only dangerous in large groups. It's drummers we need to watch.

Getting gutshot isn't a moment of glory. I'm guessing he wishes he'd never gone outside to smoke and will probably keep wishing it for months to come.

[iverglas]

70. he's a poet?

Or he just plays one in your screenplay?

His facebook passions are fast cars, knives and guns, and he admires Petraeus. I haven't known a lot of poets, but none fit that profile.



What do you call a guy who hangs out with musicians?

A drummer.

What do you call a drummer who breaks up with his girlfriend?

Homeless.

Da dum dum.

[JoeyT]

129. I dunno if he is or not.

I think the bass thing might explain the facial hair.

I was just joking that a guy with "poet" in his name was saying someone looked weird...and the guy looks like a "poets" or "musicians" we all knew in college. You know, the ones that never actually wrote any poetry or songs. ;)

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. *My* guess is, if your attempt at telepsychology turns out to be wrong we will not hear from you.

If *I* am wrong, I'll donate $25 to the Brady Campaign.

[PavePusher]

81. Wow, throwing the race card early, eh?

Not to mention a vile and wholly unsupported-by-evidence accusation....

Care to go for the hat-trick?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Street thugs come in all shades of white, brown, and black. N/T

[ileus]

191. Don't forget yellow..... just sayin' LOL

[Skip Intro]

297. WTF???!!! Blame the victim, sympathize with the thug. Yeah, thug.

Because that's what the fuck a thug is - some coward hiding behind a gun threatening law-abiding citizens with harm or death of they don't obey him.

And your answer is to capitulate?

Bull-fucking-shit.

I don't know what the fuck you're smoking but I hope the hell I never have the misfortune of smoking any.

[MyrnaLoy]

4. My favorite so far this month

U of I professor and concealed weapon holder shoots student for no reason. If you wanna play you post a "good shooting" story and I'll post 20 misuses of firearms. Come on hotshot, let's do it.

[rl6214]

6. "I'll post 20 misuses of firearms."

Seems to me you've done that already.

Didn't you, many months ago challenge me and a few others here about posting the good shoot/bad shoot sort of posts? If it wasn't you I stand corrected but I thought you were strongly opposed to those sort of threads.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gravity556]

13. Why does it matter how much money he had?

How about some increased police presence in that neighborhood? Maybe go see who has warrants and should be sitting in jail rather than wandering around looking for folks who aren't complete pieces of shit to rob? Where's the indignity that some fuckhead criminal would fucking open fire on some college kid because he wouldn't give up his wallet? "It's not worth getting killed over!" is the standard hue and cry, but where's the "It's not worth killing over" brigade? How about a little fucking indignation on behalf of the VICTIM?

The victim should have been within his rights to draw his pistol when the piece of shit thieves demanded his wallet. He should have been completely in his rights to hold the muggers at gunpoint until the cops showed up to put them in jail (prefereably for several YEARS). In some states, he could do so. But that's the only way to deal with crime like that-if the victims themselves start fighting back. Make it dangerous to be a criminal.

Instead the prevailing attitude is "Just hand it over!" "Let the cops deal with it" "Someone should do something" passivity. So pervasive that it lets people blame the victim without even realizing it. That's what you're doing when you say "it's not worth getting shot over" to someone who stood up to a criminal. But if they don't, then the piece of shit criminal just gets to keep on stealing. And what's to keep them from shooting you even if you cooperate?

Then you have a gunshot wound AND you have to spend a day at the fucking DMV to replace your ID, cancel your credit cards, change your bank account and hope that they don't sell your identity. Wow, seems to be worth a good bit more than 8 bucks. Don't forget to do the police report thing. And beef up your locks-your mugger knows where you live, so don't be surprised if your place gets broken into. Because he already knows that even if you're home, you cooperate. And keep an eye on your credit, particularly in this economy. There are a whole bunch of unscrupulous folks who wouldn't mind charging up a storm at your expense. Way way more than 8 bucks, I think.

[MyrnaLoy]

18. doesn't matter to me

he's the dumbass with a bullet in his gut for probably what amounts to 8 bucks. How much do you think he took outside to smoke? Think he even grabbed his wallet?

[pipoman]

22. Uh, no

he is the one with a bullet in his gut because some street thug valued his 8 bucks more than he valued the life of the victim. Just because you obviously love criminals doesn't change the fact that the victim here did nothing to deserve to be shot. Your response reminds me of the probable response of one of those crazy assed females who corresponds and marries convicts in prison. How very liberal to blame the victim..

edit...oh, and you are taking this indefensible position because it so pains you to see a case where being legally armed actually saved the life of the carrier..

[MyrnaLoy]

45. saved the life of the carrier

albeit got his dumbass shot.

[PavePusher]

157. Ummm, no.

He was shot before he drew his weapon.

He was shot because the criminal was a criminal.

[gejohnston]

32. what makes you think

he would not have been shot anyway? Someone who is willing to kill after being told no, is not a desperate 99ner trying to feed his family.

[MyrnaLoy]

44. well

I'm not a fortune teller and his actions got him shot. That is the fact we know. You can live in what-if land but the fact still remains, his actions got his ass shot.

[gravity556]

56. There it is-outright BLAME for the victim.

Posted by MyrnaLoy
I'm not a fortune teller and his actions got him shot. That is the fact we know. You can live in what-if land but the fact still remains, his actions got his ass shot.

What actions "got him shot"? Please, tell us how the victim of a crime is completely to blame. Really, I would absolutely LOVE to know. Next you'll say that he had it coming and he was just asking for it. Absolutely incomprehensible that an otherwise intelligent individual would see fit to lay blame on the victim of an assault. Going out for a smoke is not cause to be shot. Refusing to cooperate with CRIMINALS is not cause to be shot. Pulling a gun on the cops after you've led them on a high speed chase is doing something that will (and should) get you shot. Being a robber SHOULD get you shot.

It's absolutely reprehensible to blame the victim of a crime. What an absolutely fucking skewed and perverted statement.

[MyrnaLoy]

59. your mock outrage is noted

[gravity556]

47. Statements and attitudes like this...

"he's the dumbass with a bullet in his gut for probably what amounts to 8 bucks. How much do you think he took outside to smoke? Think he even grabbed his wallet?"

are why I no longer refer to the prohibitionist side as anti-gun. It doesn't fit. The prevailing attitude seems to be one of pro-criminal safety, allowing the individual to place blame on inanimate objects as well as blaming victims of crime rather than placing blame where it truly belongs, which is entirely and completely with the piece of shit criminal fucktards. Not all that far off from the knuckle dragging idiots who spout the "if she didn't want to be raped, she should have worn something else", and just as despicable.

So assume you're right and he didn't bring his wallet. Is it still his fault that he was shot? Or should he have dashed upstairs to collect some tribute money to pay off his mugger? Seriously-I'm curious to know. Particularly since, judging by your statement, you assume that his actions are to blame for the sociopath opening fire on him. Was he asking for it? You and some others in this thread seem to believe that he got some kind of comeuppance. For what? Would you be as hostile toward him if he had *not* been an armed victim? I really am curious as to why you pro-criminal safety folks take the stance that it's somehow the fault of the victim when some savage throws a tantrum because he can't have what isn't his.

Not going to hold my breath on getting an explanation though. I do expect that someone will fling insults my way, but that's fine-after all, I climbed into this monkey cage, so I won't be overly vexed when the inhabitants hurl feces, but I'm hoping for the best...

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. Some people *have* to attack the victim, in order to "defend" gun conctrol

That's also why they minimize or try to explain away the threat posed by an armed robber who would shoot someone for refusing
to give them money- it's System Justification Theory. Well explained by DUer Bonobo, in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1348316

System Justification Theory - why people (even Dems) defend authoritarianism

After seeing the mind-boggling degree to which some people bend over backwards to defend TSA procedures -even as they become more egregious and start to spread out to other locations such as buses and trains - I decided to see if I could find some psychological theory that would explain this tendency.

I see echoes of the same thing when people defend social injustices, supreme court judge behavior and any theory that threatens their sense that everything is okay and fine. This explains, in my mind, why some people seem to have an obsessive need to try to "debunk" things which threaten their sense of a stable system that they understand (they call them "conspiracy theories")...

That's why (to them) Ells is a "nutcase", "a wanker" or decided poorly- his actions threaten their belief that if they just
go along, everything will turn out well. So they attack him, and not the scumbag that shot him for not being a compliant victim.

Bookmark this thread, for when you need to point out that restrictionistas tend to be criminal apologists.

[DanTex]

96. Sorry, but pointing out that the victim exercised bad judgement is not pro-criminal

By painting others as "pro-criminal", you are trying to avoid the fact that the victim here made an error in judgement, an error that could easily have cost him his life. I get that you like the idea of good guys shooting down bad guys, but the sober reality is getting into a shootout is clearly a worse outcome than simply handing over the money and avoiding conflict.

And yes, it's true that handing over the cash means that the criminal "wins." But the truth is that it is best to not let pride or annoyance at the thought of a criminal getting away with robbery to cloud your judgement. The most important thing is personal safety, not teaching the criminals a lesson that you're not someone to be messed with. None of that is worth getting shot over.

The fact that someone is a criminal doesn't mean it's always a good idea to attack them. It's got nothing to do with assigning blame. It's about safety and judgement.

[PavePusher]

104. Resisting criminals is "bad judgement"?

Wow. There goes civilisation. It was nice while it lasted.

[DanTex]

105. You're funny with the hyperbole.

But do you really think it's better to get into a shootout rather than just handing over the cash?

[friendly_iconoclast]

127. You're not the first to blame the victim and excuse the perp. A couple of blasts from the DU past:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101

[DanTex]

166. Yeah, keep repeating the mantra. You might even convince yourself eventually...

Back on earth, it's obvious to everyone that nobody is excusing the perp or blaming the victim.

It's just that anyone who pulls a gun on criminal is instantly elevated to demigod status by the church of CCW, which is always looking for validation. The same way fundies of any stripe react with hyperbolic scorn to nonbelievers who challenge their dogma with logic, here a few of us point out that resisting the criminal and getting into a shootout was clearly a worse outcome than handing over the cash and avoiding conflict, and y'all come back with the nonsensical distorted accusations of a cornered true believer.

I hate to interrupt your hero-worshipping session, I really do. But in this case your hero made a bad call. Most muggers want your cash, they don't want to shoot anyone, it's a simple fact. The best move was to give up the cash and avoid conflict.

[Straw Man]

151. Oh by all means, hand over the cash.

He won't hurt you. I'm a firm believer in entrusting my life to the good will of the person who is sticking a gun in my face.

[PavePusher]

159. What do you think the end result of giving criminals anything they demand...

will be?

Seriously?

[DanTex]

167. In this case, the result would be the victim not getting shot.

Please do tell, what do you think the outcome would be?

[PavePusher]

183. And what guarantee do you offer? n/t

[DanTex]

184. No guarantees. Just better chances of surviving and avoiding injury.

[PavePusher]

192. Again, you assume the criminal would not have shot anyone...

had they simply done as demanded, and that he wouldn't have shot again had he not been further resisted.

And again you offer no evidence, no assistance and no guarantee.

[DanTex]

193. I'll repeat, no guarantees, just better odds...

Muggers don't want to shoot anyone, they want money. People get mugged all the time and very few get shot. That's because most victims have the good sense to give up the cash rather than play tough guy over a few dollars.

Even in this incident, there were two victims. Only one got shot. Guess which one. That's right, the CCer who pulled the gun.

[oneshooter]

194. He was SHOT before he pulled his weapon. Read and understand. n/t

[Euromutt]

300. It's hard to see how an assertion like "his actions got his ass shot" is NOT "assigning blame"

Right here, if you need the reference.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

223. !

jaw droppingly callous disregard for human suffering, duly noted...

can.not.believe. I just read what I just read.

:( :wow: :o :wtf: :o :wtf: :o :wow: :(

[PavePusher]

230. Where is the line drawn at which we may resist criminals? What's your limit?

How much stuff must I let them take before I can resist?

[Straw Man]

17. Disingenuous much?

I have specific reasons for posting shooting stories. Too many gun owners want to "hide" from the news reports, this forum is a perfect example of that.

Chicken or egg, dude. Post enough uncontextualized stories with no stated connection to policy issues, and it becomes plain that you're propagandizing, pure and simple. You're exposing us to some unpleasant truth that we should be aware of? Opening a dialogue? Puh-leeze. If you have a point to make, try to make it. The "crusading journalist" mantle doesn't fit. Nobody's hiding from anything, and you're not the carrier of some great truth.

If I were a more cynical man, I'd guess that you just like stirring shit up.

[azureblue]

15. the real issue here

is where were the cops? they know about the street thugs, the school knows about them, yet they gangs still operate, and the students are told how to keep from being robbed /assaulted. WTF? . This is clearly a matter of the police not doing their jobs, not protecting people, and a private citizen having to carry a gun in order to defend himself. Rather than getting on Eells case, the local PD and the school security should be catching hell for allowing this to go on.


Note to Eells- next time shoot for the head.

[gejohnston]

16. maybe the PD is underfunded because

city council and administration with pissed the tax money away on some corporate welfare or has been hanging around Perry and decided to do the cops like Perry did rural firefighters.

[SteveM]

39. Yep, Perry will cut-'an-run everytime, esp. from debates. nt

[DWC]

25. The real issue here

is recognizing the fact that, in the real world, you must be your "first responder" in defense of yourself. Robert recognized that fact and, though seriously injured, stopped the violent criminal from finishing what he started.

Anyone who expects LEOs to always be there and stand between them and violent criminals or violent crazies is simply out of touch with reality.

Semper Fi,

[rrneck]

28. Cops can't jump

through a rip in the fabric of time. Criminals aren't stupid (that way). They wont assault you if the police are in a position to respond.

[iverglas]

73. not really

How realistic is it to expect that there be cops driving down any given block when somebody decides to engage in a little stick-up action?

So your post is clearly a matter of diversionary grooming and straw-person baiting.

The real issue here is: where did the kid get the gun?

I can tell you to an absolute certainty that in the crappy neighbourhood I live in, in a largish Canadian city, there is not one single 15-yr-old with a gun. Not one. I doubt that there is one in the city. At that age they're a little too young for serious gang action, and nobody's going to be wasting the very scarce supply of handguns on one of them.

And the plain fact in this case is: no gun, no crime.

No 15-year-old kid and his two buddies are going to walk up to two grown men in front of their own home and try to rob them, unless they have a weapon. And a knife just isn't going to cut it, really, if you'll excuse the wordplay. Two men at their own home on a residential street, three teenagers with knives, nah, those odds aren't really in the teenagers' favour. Although it's unlikely that the robbery victim would have been injured more seriously than he was, had the robbers had a knife and he'd had no weapon at all.

If the kid had not had a gun, there would have been no crime, and nobody would have got shot.

So how come nobody's asking that question?

Why did that kid have a gun?

It's one great big question, to be sure; but nobody claiming to be oh so very concerned about the attempted robbery victim here can really think they can get away with just dancing over it.

[X_Digger]

153. "no gun, no crime"

Riiiight...

2 robbers, 6 victims..
http://www.annarbor.com/news/ypsilanti/robbers-wielding-knife-asphalt-chunk-steal-change-from-basketball-players-in-ypsilanti-police-say/

2 robbers, 'multiple' victims..
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/01/bagel-shop-robbers-armed-knife/

2 robbers, 1 victim..
http://www.5newsonline.com/news/crimestoppers/kfsm-two-men-armed-with-knife-rob-fayetteville-colombiamex-employee-20110709,0,4104298.story
http://www.kfdm.com/articles/robber-44369-beaumont-second.html

Oh, look, here are some international stories..
http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=645032&vId=
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Subway+knife+pair+rob+youth%3B+Attackers+grab+watch+andphone.-a081382575
http://live.haligonia.ca/halifax-ns/bedford-beacon/21711-youths-charged-in-relation-to-robbery-in-bedford.html

Upon arrival, officers located four victims who reported they were approached by a group of young people consisting of three male youths and two female youths. After one of the male youths brandished a machete and demanded money, the group complied with the demand and the suspects then fled on foot.

Do you even consider googling before making bold assertions like that?

[iverglas]

199. exactly what would I google?

I already know the situation in the case at hand.

A 15-yr-old and two buddies in a situation where I am entirely confident that the robbery would not have been attempted without the firearm.

If they'd thought a machete was the tool for the job, they would undoubtedly have brought a machete along.

[X_Digger]

200. You feel free to be 'entirely confident' of whatever you like..

But there are many examples of youths robbing people with knives in the US.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

248. Absolute certainty?

I think you need to get back in touch with the streets. If you live in an urban environment, even in Canada, the gang members have guns, even some as young as 15. How they get them is a fair question. That they do not have them is fantasy.

Should by some magic all firearms were to disappear from illegal hands, then the substitute is numbers and edged weapons. Look at the UK. The roots of violent crime is not weapons availability, it is those who are willing to commit violence against others for their personal gain.

[iverglas]

260. I think you need to keep spewing ignorant shit

I think you need to get back in touch with the streets. If you live in an urban environment, even in Canada, the gang members have guns, even some as young as 15.

Maybe in Winnipeg.

I live on "the streets", pal. I don't live in some sprawling suburb or rural idyll. I live in one of the highest-density neighbourhoods in Canada, composed of tightly packed largely substandard housing and little green space, with druggies and hookers and assorted other characters all around.


The roots of violent crime is not weapons availability, it is those who are willing to commit violence against others for their personal gain.

Well, we'll put you in the "born bad" group then.

btw, has someone said that the "roots of violent crime is" weapons availability?

Don't think so.

Look up "necessary" and "sufficient" next time you're in a library, 'k?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

261. More enlighted civil discourse on your part

I live on "the streets", pal. I don't live in some sprawling suburb or rural idyll. I live in one of the highest-density neighbourhoods in Canada, composed of tightly packed largely substandard housing and little green space, with druggies and hookers and assorted other characters all around.

Ask the local constabulary if they too are "absolute certain" that no 15yo gang member has a gun in your town. I will go out on a limb and say they will not concur with your unsupported assessment.

Well, we'll put you in the "born bad" group then.
I did not say "born bad", you have tried to put those words in my mouth. Again I will point out that for someone so insistent on exact quotes, you seem very willing to play fast and loose with others words.

There are those who have claimed/inferred/indicated/alluded to the concept that without guns violent crime would decrease, or without a gun a particular crime or another would not have occurred. Do you know anyone who might have said something along those lines?

[iverglas]

264. take Canada's capital

A metro area of about 1 million. Just as an example: a mid-sized city with a range of types of neighbourhoods, both francophone and anglophone communities, lots of immigrants, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2011/03/07/17527226.html

The numbers behind gun crimes in Ottawa:

2009

20 shootings
14 gang related
1 gun-related homicide
56 guns seized by guns and gangs unit

2010

22 shootings
12 gang related
2 gun-related homicides
23 guns seized by guns and gangs unit

2011 (First two months)

3 shootings
1 gang related
22 guns seized by guns and gangs unit

In two years, 2009-2010, THREE gun-related homicides. Fewer than 80 guns seized. In a city of about 1 million. You think 15-yr-olds can afford those guns at street prices?

There was a 15-yr-old with gun incident in Ottawa some years back ... actually they may have been older; young offender goes up to 17. No, here we are:

http://business.highbeam.com/4341/article-1G1-18053621/drive-conviction

February 26, 1996
Rubens Henderson, 17, was convicted in the downtown Ottawa drive-by killing of British engineer Nicholas Battersby, 27, in March, 1994.

... so indeed he was 15. Four kids broke into a house in a lovely middle-class neighbourhood and stole the illegally stored rifle, bought themselves some ammunition at Canadian Tire (which as a result now cannot be done w/o a licence), drove down the main drag shooting things up, and killed somebody. Not quite what you have in mind.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/101026/dq101026a-eng.htm

In 2008, there were 56 youth homicides in Canada. In 2009, there were 179 firearms homicides in Canada. If the US had the same rate, it would have had about 1600 firearms homicides.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100325/dq100325b-eng.htm

In 2008, there were about 32,000 robberies in Canada, of which about 4500 involved firearms. If the US had the same rate, it would have had about 40,000 firearms robberies.

An article decrying high crime rates in Winnipeg:

http://informedvote.ca/2009/11/02/violent-crime-dangerously-high-in-winnipeg-manitoba/

Not a mention of young offenders with guns.

Getting it at all? That you simply do not know what you are talking about and yet will not stop doing it anyway?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

268. If we were discussing Japan, I might believe you

Since it is Canada, I do not. The border with the US is just to porous. Again, ask at the local cop shop if they are as absolutely certain as you are. My source for this is law enforcement journals where Canadian LEOs are complaining about young gang members with guns, which would appear to translate as youth offenders. Maybe they are just whining to get better budgets.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

270. here ya go

http://ontarioguns.blogspot.com/2008/01/youth-weapons-and-violence-in-toronto.html

Monday, January 21, 2008
"YOUTH, WEAPONS AND VIOLENCE IN TORONTO AND MONTREAL"
May, 2006
Synopsis Prepared by: ...

Recently, attention by the media and public to the apparent increase in firearms related homicides in Toronto has tended to focus on "youth, guns, and gangs". The search for explanations and potentially effective interventions has also revealed how little research is available in Canada to address these issues. In contrast, the higher concern over guns, youth, and gang violence in the United States has prompted a spate of research over the past 20 years. Consequently, Canada is in a position to possibly over-draw from U.S. data and conclusions, lacking our own evidence on the scope and nature of the Canadian problem. In order to address this gap, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada partnered with researchers from the University of Toronto to produce a report on "Youth, Weapons and Violence in Toronto and Montreal"<1>. This synopsis summarizes the research on which the report is based, highlights key findings, and discusses resulting conclusions and recommendations. ...

The research was conducted using survey information obtained through the Drugs, Alcohol, and Violence International (DAVI) study, a joint US-Canada project on youth, drugs and violence that began in 1999<2>. ...

The sample is broken down into three groups: students, selected through a two-stage stratified probability sample; dropouts, defined as those who had left school for at least 30 consecutive days during the past 12 months, and detainees, youth serving sentences in secure custodial facilities. Students were surveyed in the school using self-administered questionnaires, and dropouts and detainees were surveyed using personal interviews. The student sample consists of 904 9th- to 12th-graders from Toronto (8 schools; n=456 students) and Montreal (8 schools, n=448) surveyed between April 2001 and May 2003. The dropout sample consists of 218 respondents; 116 interviewed in Toronto between July 2000 and November 2002 and 102 interviewed in Montreal between January and June 2003. The sample was obtained through referrals from service agencies, youth centres, and outreach efforts, and respondents received $15 at the end of the interview. The detainee sample consisted of 278 youth, 132 in Southern Ontario secure custody facilities whose family home is in Toronto, and 146 from secure custody facilities serving the Montreal area.

Students in the Toronto sample were more likely than those in Montreal to report problems with weapons in the school environment, with 77% (vs. 56% in Montreal) reporting that "some" or "a few" students carried weapons in school, 22% (vs. 7% in Montreal) reporting knowing someone who had brought a gun to school, and 33% (vs. 18% in Montreal) perceiving guns to be a "very or somewhat serious" problem in their schools. ...

At the time, high school in Ontario ended at grade 13; a student with a normal academic career would be 18 or 19 on completing high school. So unfortunately, there is no basis for determining the age of those self-reporting carrying a firearm to school (the study sample was aged 14 to 17) or of the other persons they reported knowing to have done it. The data also apppear to be old.

So it may be that in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Winnipeg -- and more specifically, in very specific neighbourhoods in those cities -- there are youth in their middle teens with guns. My nephew was in high school in Toronto about a decade ago and my niece has just started high school in a small city outside Toronto; I'll email them and ask them about guns in their schools, 'k?

You do have to be careful of your sources ...

http://www.coav.org.br/publique/cgi/cgilua.exe/sys/start.htm?query=advsearch&search_by_section=107&search_by_headline=false&search_by_field=tax&from_info_index=21&infoid=214&sid=107&search_by_keywords=2&text=&UserActiveTemplate=_en&search_text_options=all&search_by_priority=all&search_by_authorname=all&search_by_state=all

September 2nd, 2003 – Toronto police belive that gun rentals signal an increasing gang presence on their city streets. "I don’t think that it’s something new. It’s something that’s resurging," said Sergeant Joe Gataveckas to the National Post. "Wherever there’s gangs, there’s guns."

Police believe that guns are rented out in nightclubs and private homes and have been used in two recent gang-related shootings.

Out of control

Toronto’s Police Chief Julian Fantino recently spoke out against "out of control" youth violence and has deployed special units to target gangs and guns. ...

Julian Fantino speaking to the National Post ... Fantino has been cited approvingly on occasion in this forum; he was not a fan of the firearms registry. He is now a member of Parliament for the governing Conservative Party, the right-wing extremists who have made "tough on crime" their vote-getting mantra in a decade when crime of all kinds in Canada, and especially youth crime, is declining in both numbers and severity.

Note, however, that the youth crime severity index did rise and peak in 2007 and has since declined sharply. The 2004-2007 period was indeed one when gang violence was perceived as "out of control" in a place like Toronto; a resident of any US city would have regarded the situation as utopian. (The 2005 "Summer of the Gun" in Toronto resulted in a total of 52 firearms homicides for the year in the city, a rate of very roughly 1/100,000.)

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm

Chart 1
Police-reported crime rates, Canada, 1962 to 2010


Chart 2
Police-reported crime severity indexes, Canada, 2000 to 2010


Chart 16
Youth accused of crime, by clearance status, Canada, 2000 to 2010


Chart 17
Police-reported youth crime severity indexes, Canada, 2000 to 2010

[iverglas]

272. I'm so terribly sorry

Did I point out that you were ignorant whereof you speak, and did someone find this problematic?

Maybe I should have pointed out (as I believe I did in my next post) that young offenders in Canada are aged 12 to 17. So it cannot be inferred that anyone talking about "young gang members with guns" even if they are referring specifically to young offenders, is talking about 15-yr-olds.

There ya go.

[PavePusher]

91. How many police would be required to ensure adequete protection?

How much will that cost, both financially and in our societal freedom and liberty?

[iverglas]

143. sarcasm sniffer not working tonight?

Yeeeeesh.

Bite that bale of straw hard, now.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Two more fucking idiots shoot each other and the taxpayers pick up the bill.

Handguns really solve our socio-economic problems.

[ileus]

27. So the guy defending himself is an idiot?

did it say somewhere he didn't have insurance?

[Starboard Tack]

34. Both had handguns. Both used handguns to try to improve their lives.

Both lost. I don't care whether he had insurance or not. Don't you know how insurance works? The many pay for the few. In this case the many pay for the idiots.
I guess the kid wasn't a very successful "thug" and the student didn't do a very good job of "defending" himself.

[SteveM]

40. Disingenuous...

"Both lost."

What in hell is this? Da thug demanded money and was refused. DA THUG pulled out a gun and started shooting, I suspect because he thought he was entitled to. The would-be victim THEN pulled his gun and returned fire. Had he not done this, he could very well have died. As it is, he is injured. But da thug will (hopefully) be put in the steel cage for along time -- and NOT be a threat to citizens in the mean time.

You are wandering in the Land of the False Equivalency, casting aspersions at thug and law-abiding citizen alike.

[Starboard Tack]

50. The moment he strapped that gun on he became DA TOTER

Guess the invincibility part didn't work out too well. A bad idiot plus a good idiot still equals two idiots.

[SteveM]

58. Invincibility is a straw man. Self-defense is a morally defensible position...

In fact, it is incumbent on a responsible citizen. You may not agree, but I support self-defense. As did Gandhi, as did King.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Talk about straw man.

When did I say I didn't support self-defense? I just don't see a handgun as a self-defense tool. Hopefully, young Mr. Eells has arrived at the same conclusion.
I would think that introducing a handgun into any situation, enhances the potential for a violent and undesirable outcome, as was demonstrated, so clearly, in this case.
I'm sure that you or I would have responded differently in this situation, but not knowing the exact details and neither of us having been there, it is hard to say what either of us might have done. But, I hope that we would have had a little more maturity, life experience and situational awareness. Hopefully less testosterone.

[GreenStormCloud]

140. You have it backwards.

It was the criminal that introduced a gun into the confrontation. The defender didn't draw his gun until AFTER he was already shot. Having a gun may well have saved Eells from getting shot again and saved his friend from getting shot.

[Starboard Tack]

172. I read two different reports. It wasn't clear who shot first.

If the "thug" just started shooting for no reason except to shoot someone, it begs the question "Why Eells and not one of his friends?" How did he know which one had the gun?
Apparently, what we had was 6 guys in all, but only 2 were armed and shooting at each other. Both ended up in the ICU. I think the message is pretty clear.

[GreenStormCloud]

186. How about a link to the other report, please? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

213. Sure. Here it is. Not clear who started shooting first.

http://doylestown.patch.com/articles/temple-student-critical-after-shooting

[GreenStormCloud]

219. Please notice this sentence in your linked article:

As Eells and a roommate were smoking outside their apartment, three men tried to rob them at gunpoint, but Eells, who also has a license to carry a gun, shot back,<[/b> wounding one of the assailants.

Eells "shot back" meaning that he returned fire, therefore the thug shot first.

[iverglas]

265. please notice that this is an uncorroborated account

by one of the parties, if it is even that, being told third-hand by a newspaper.

Who needs courts?

[GreenStormCloud]

295. Absent any other info, that's what we have to go with.

And the shooter did have a witness. I assume that the witness has also been interviewed. The other two thugs haven't searched out the police or media with a different story.

[PavePusher]

94. When are you going to start volunteering your personal time to provide security for others?

My bet is half-past fuck-all ever.

[Starboard Tack]

115. I wouldn't be teaching kids to carry handguns. That's for sure.

I've done my share of providing security for others and teaching people how to take care of themselves. All without resorting to handguns. And I'm certainly not being paid to talk common sense into a bunch of knuckleheads in this forum.

[jmg257]

117. That's interesting. When I supplied security, and was teaching people, it was always with or about

handguns.


Weird...

[Starboard Tack]

176. I know. Isn't life strange?

[jmg257]

185. It does make ya wonder! (well...makes me wonder anyway!)

Hard to know I guess without having great knowledge about the...life-shaping experiences of those with 'opposing' views.

Kind of cool though when people can, or at least try to, keep an open mind and appreciate the opinions of others without just talking past each other. I think we get way too much of that.

I also find it interesting when somewhere along the way there is enough understanding that points from both sides start to make some sense!

[gejohnston]

119. glad you are doing for free, hate to see

someone not getting their money's worth.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"--Albert Einstein

[Starboard Tack]

177. Good job Einstein wasn't a philosopher

[rrneck]

182. We're all philosophers.

Some people just make a living at it.

[gejohnston]

122. nonsense

As someone who grew up dirt poor, I kind of tired of poverty as an excuse for being a predatory sociopath. I used a revolver and rifle to put meat in the freezer, but I never did drugs and I never ripped anyone else off. I never pointed one at another human.
Even if the student didn't defend himself or was unarmed, he still would have been shot or stabbed or beaten to death because some fucking asshole sociopath wanted a free ride at the crack house.

[gejohnston]

29. did we read the same article?

Since some see "thug" as a racist code word (yet are assuming the race of the criminal, but I digress.) I will use a more descriptive term.
This is the one I read. I don't see any fucking idiots. I a couple of fucking asshole sociopaths seeing a nerdy looking college kid thinking "he looks like an easy mark".

The thugs demanded that Eells give them his money. Eells refused.
One of them then brandished a gun and started firing at Eells and his friend. Eells caught a round in the stomach.
But Eells wasn’t defenseless. He, a licensed gun owner with a carry permit, also drew his gun and fired several shots toward the robbers. He hit one of the assailants, a 15-year-old whose name has not been released, in the chest and leg. While the others quickly fled the scene.

According to the account, the fucking asshole sociopath started shooting after Eells said no. Eells returned fire after that.
So, what makes Eells a fucking idiot? Saying no to a fucking asshole sociopath (which still could have got him shot, and definitely would cause Mr. Eells problems with credit card companies, DMV, his landlord, etc.)?
Is Eells a fucking idiot for defending himself after being shot at? Even if there were no guns, Eells and his friend would most likely be dead or badly beaten from the simple fact that he was outnumbered by a group of fucking asshole sociopaths willing to kill to steal a couple of bucks.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Anyone who endorses the manufacture, sale and use of handguns contributed to this.

"6ABC reported Monday that Rob Eells, 21, was shot after he exchanged gunfire with three men who tried to rob him."
How's that self-dense argument working?

[SteveM]

41. STILL trying to pet the head of the poor sick puppy? Jeez. nt

[Starboard Tack]

52. I'd have kicked them both in the ass, like their parents should have.

A loser is a loser. Tote a handgun, odds are you'll lose. Vegas is full of guys who think they've figured out how to win. Same mentality. Gamblers anonymous could be the answer.

[SteveM]

57. Ass-kicking before the crime may have some effect; afterwards, no.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Right. Not much point kicking someone's ass when they're on life support.

I guess they're both grounded for a while.

[Starboard Tack]

180. Absolutely. Not much point afterwards. They did it to each other.

[PavePusher]

97. "Tote a handgun, odds are you'll lose."

Cite your evidence.

Any reason you are being so vile to victims of criminals today?

[Starboard Tack]

112. I'm not being vile to victims of criminals.

The criminal is a bad idiot. The victim is a good idiot. That isn't being vile. I feel for the kid, but toting the gun didn't help and probably contributed to his being on life support. He was under the illusion that he would be able to defend himself, because people like you had put that idea into his head. Why don't you go visit him and explain what went wrong?

The only thing vile her is that both these kids thought that carrying a fucking handgun would solve their problems. Go explain to them why that didn't work out too well, Mr. Illusion Pusher. And while you're there explain to the doctors and nurses how good guns are for self-defense.

[gejohnston]

120. do you know the time line?

the way the article reads, bad guy started shooting first. Good guy being armed or not did not affect bad guy's decision. Like I said in another post, the good guy would likely be stabbed or beaten to death by the group of bad guys if no guns were involved.

[Starboard Tack]

173. "the way the article reads, bad guy started shooting first."

I wonder where that info came from. Hmm, let's see. Eells, or his buddy, methinks. Doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.
The facts that we do know are, there were 5 guys, 3 bad guys and 2 good guys. The 2 with guns shot each other. Those without are fine.
If no guns were involved, Eells and his buddy might have taken a prudent step inside his house to avoid the situation in the first place. I guess he felt safe dealing with the gang of "thugs" because he was toting. If you support that kind of behavior, feel free to contribute to his medical costs.

[gravity556]

190. Right, open up the front door..

with a group of thugs standing there. Then they can force their way in so they can steal more shit and kill the victims in privacy. Best. Idea. EVAR! Sure, it's an a leap to presume, but since you're making leaps and discussing "what if"s (If no guns were involved, Eells and his buddy might have taken a prudent step inside his house to avoid the situation in the first place. I guess he felt safe dealing with the gang of "thugs" because he was toting. If you support that kind of behavior, feel free to contribute to his medical costs.), might was well look at worst case scenarios.

And now, not only are you blaming the victim, you're insinuating that he's a liar. There's just no bottom on the depths you pro-criminal safety folks will go to smear someone who has the spine to stand up to a criminal, is there? Any other aspersions you want to make about the victim of this crime? Between this thread and the other one (that blog spam guy started it, but with a less misleading title), the victim's been blamed for his own injury, been called a "dangerous nutjob", insulted for his looks and folks have insinuated that he's of less than average intelligence. Absolutely vile behavior. The individual who deserves the derision is the low-life criminal-not the victim.

[Starboard Tack]

214. How's that toting working for this young man? Bad decision.

Nobody is supporting the criminals, just wondering why law abiding citizens would lower themselves to that level and try to resolve their problems with handguns. I hope young Eells survives and has learned his lesson.

[gravity556]

225. I hope he has learned.

Shoot the piece of shit criminal BEFORE he gets a chance to shoot you.

Nobody is supporting the criminals, just wondering why law abiding citizens would lower themselves to that level and try to resolve their problems with handguns. I hope young Eells survives and has learned his lesson.

And the most likely reason that the victim's friends didn't get shot by the fuckbag thug is that the victim returned fire. Thieves tend toward cowardice (because they're scavengers), so I would imagine that once they realized that their victim could actually fight back, they decided to be elsewhere. Eels should have drawn sooner rather than letting the fucking shitbag scum draw first, but that was his only mistake. Oh, I know, the pro-criminal safety folks would prefer a dead victim than one who fights back, though I can't understand why the life of an antisocial savage is worth more than the life of a law abiding and productive citizen to some sick individuals.

[gejohnston]

236. lowering themselves to what level?

standing up to injustice? Telling a sociopath no? What is this resolving problems bullshit? Eells did not start a shoot out over a parking space. Some sociopath shot him because he was told no and or a gang initiation. His actions tell me that he is most likely a sociopath, not a victim of poverty or lack of opportunity. Eell's use of a pistol was the only solution to the problem without being dead. Why should Mr. Eells value the life of a sociopath over his? The robber certainly did not value Mr. Eell's. Judging from many of the posts on your side, they don't seem to either.

As a law abiding citizen, why should he or anyone else just give in the demands of any clown who wants to take it? Do you seriously that makes a civilized society? I think not. It is like banksters and tort reform, it makes the FASs more bold because they will not fear resistance nor arrest because of the slim likelihood of arrest. Is that why UK has more violent crime other than homicide than the US? Just what makes UK more civilized? Because of guns or lack of? That is a pretty shallow way of looking at things.

To have a truly just and civilized society, sociopaths must be removed from it. It applies to rich white collar con men like Bernie Madoff, war criminals like Dick Cheney, or the MS-13 member. Ideally they should be warehoused for life by the system according to due process, but if someone like Mr. Eells happens to kill one in self defense, so fucking what?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2569/have-great-britains-restrictive-gun-laws-contributed-to-the-rise-in-violent-crime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

[jmg257]

123. The only thing vile her is that both these kids thought that carrying a fucking handgun..

"The only thing vile here is that both these kids thought that carrying a fucking handgun would solve their problems"

For what its worth...this is a great comment. The jury may still be out on the victim being better off or not, but anyway - this is brilliant.

Well done.

[gejohnston]

124. who said anything about solving problem

Do you seriously think Eells not having one would have resulted in a better outcome? I don't. At the very least he would still be wounded. If the other did not have a gun, Eells would still be stabbed and or beaten possibly to death.

[jmg257]

131. Starboard did. And it makes sense.

Criminal apparently thought having & using a gun would get him what he wanted - money in this case...he got shot instead.

Ells likely thought having a gun would keep him safe..it MIGHT have helped..."Eells would still be stabbed and or beaten possibly", which is why the jury is still out, as we will never know what he would have done or what would have happened if he wasn't carrying...he too got shot instead.

[PavePusher]

148. No-one said a firearm makes you immune to criminal action.

Just that it may give you an edge in fighting them off and surviving the process.

[jmg257]

169. Good thing...I didn't think anyone did. Hopefully everyone knows that. Nt

[gejohnston]

201. given that the victim fired only after

being shot, as the account implies, he would not any better off. He was shot for saying no. Brilliant is the the term I would use.

[jmg257]

203. I did use "brilliant". Wonder what would have happened if

He didn't say no. And if he would have said no if he didn't have a gun.

Wonder if, in this case, would eells have gotten shot if he didn't have a gun, while pretty certain he wouldn't have gotten shot if the attacker didn't have a gun.

Also obvious the attacker wouldn't have gotten shot if eells wasn't armed, but do wonder if he would have attempted a robbery without a gun.

[gejohnston]

204. who knows

might have been shot anyway. In fact, more than likely given that he was willing to kill over the word no, he was either concerned about street cred or just another FAS. I have no idea you will have to ask Eells.
The attacker did not know Eells had a gun until after he fired, so the question is absurd unless you believe the Joyce Foundation talking points that gun have magical powers. Most of the time, the criminal runs when the mark draws a gun or other defensive measure.
Possibly, given most violent crimes other than murder do not involve firearms. Since Eells was out numbered by about 1.5-3 to one, most likely. Like I said, the FAS saw a nerdy kid with glasses and assumed he was an easy mark.
If you want a truly civilized society, predators like FASs have to be removed from society for long terms. Same applies to gangsters who steal with a gun or the corporate types who steal with a pen. A FAS is FAS and they are born, not made. Bush is the perfect example of one who had none of the disadvantages of the wounded kid. But he is still a FAS that shares many traits as a serial killer. Not that Bush is one, just that he is a sociopath. Read Bush on the Couch.

[jmg257]

205. Sorry..but what is a FAS? thanks...n

[gejohnston]

206. Fucking Asshole Sociopath it applies equally to

sociopaths who are street thugs and wall street banksters alike.

[PavePusher]

147. Huh, new definition for "idiot": one who resists criminals.

I musta missed a policy memo....

Seems the victim may well have saved himself. Or did you assume the criminal was only going to shoot once? You do know abdominal wounds can be fatal, right? You also seem to assume that the criminal wouldn't shoot after getting money. I don't know how you can determine that.

[Starboard Tack]

174. "I musta missed a policy memo...." More than one, I think.

"Seems the victim may well have saved himself." How do you figure that, by getting into a gunfight? Hopefully, the doctors will save him. I didn't assume the criminal was going to shoot at all, but if I were hanging out on the porch at 2 am in Philly (which I have done quite recently BTW in a very sketchy neighborhood) and I saw 3 apparent "thugs" approaching, I would probably go inside and avoid the whole confrontation. I suspect that our friend, young Eells, felt emboldened by the fact that he was toting a gun and could deal with the situation. He was wrong. That's what's called "situational awareness". What he did is called "stupidity".

I can't "determine" anything, because we don't have all the facts, besides what the news reports say and they are probably third hand. But, my bet is, Eells thought his gun put him on safe ground and influenced his decision to remain on the porch, rather than going back inside his house. I would also bet that Eells pulled his gun before being shot and probably fired first, because, as you say, a stomach wound is often fatal and can be very debilitating. The only witness was probably his buddy and we don't have to wonder what he's gonna say about who shot first etc.

[PavePusher]

181. Sorry, but you make assumptions about behavior that are not based on facts or evidence.

Lots of non-criminal people are up and about at all hours of the day.

Advocating that we cede territory to criminals at any time seems to be a difficult position to defend.

[Starboard Tack]

216. Nobody is advocating the "coding of territory"

Just using the territory available to each of us that lies between our ears.

[oneshooter]

135. And if you had tried, then you would have been the one shot.,

By the same thug. He had no compuction against shooting one person, who had not attacked him, so what makes you think your outcome would have been any different?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

168. Jeez Oneshooter, not at the scene.

Not everything has to be left to the last minute and dealt with at the OK Corral. I'd have kicked'em in the ass way before, as a parent, for even thinking about using a gun to solve their fucking problems.

[oneshooter]

171. Not what you posted.

"I'd have kicked them both in the ass, like their parents should have."

And you would have been shot.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

179. You can't be that dim. I know what I posted.

If I were talking about kicking them in the ass at the time of the shooting, why would I mention their parents? I'll try to keep it simpler in future, so you can follow.

[gejohnston]

53. the bad guy shot first

the good guy just figured he would go away, or are you saying Eells should have pulled his gun out while saying no? Either way, Eells would have been beaten or shot to death.

[Starboard Tack]

114. You don't know that the bad guy shot first. The re[ports are different.

Neither of us were there. Point is, Eells bought into the invincibility crap that you guys sell and now he's on life support. Hope you all feel good about that. More guns, less crime. Right.

[gejohnston]

128. two straw men in one post

must be good sale.
no one said anything about invincibility, as pointed out in another post.
No one here said more guns equals less crime.

[Starboard Tack]

175. "No one here said more guns equals less crime."

You must have missed the few hundred posts that have claimed that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

195. If there's a "few hundred posts that have claimed that.", can you link to a few?

Take your time...

[friendly_iconoclast]

275. I guess he couldn't. Color me unsurprised... n/t

[rl6214]

291. Bullshit

"Anyone who endorses the manufacture, sale and use of handguns contributed to this."

Utter Bullshit

[iverglas]

62. who's reading in now?

You say: According to the account, the fucking asshole sociopath started shooting after Eells said no. Eells returned fire after that.

The report says:

One of them then brandished a gun and started firing at Eells and his friend. Eells caught a round in the stomach.
But Eells wasn’t defenseless. He, a licensed gun owner with a carry permit, also drew his gun and fired several shots toward the robbers.

Where do you see a timeline there? Does "also" mean "afterward"?

Did he take out his fariearm only after being shot? Does it say that there?

I don't know. I won't guess, let alone advance my guess as fact.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DanTex]

30. Another instance of a gun making a situation worse.

Two guns actually.

First, the criminal's gun. It is easy to take for granted that criminals will always be armed, but the fact of the matter is that in basically any other first-world nation, this same story would likely have taken place with no guns at all, and nobody getting shot. The US, with it's exceptionally lax gun laws, has by far the highest rates of gun crimes among wealthy nations.

And then there's the victim's gun. The victim's choice to shoot it out rather than give up his wallet was unwise, and he is lucky to be alive. It's hard to second-guess a split-second decision made under a lot of stress, but by carrying a gun, he gave himself the opportunity to exercise bad judgement. It's also possible that carrying the gun gave him a false sense of security that encouraged him to go outside alone in a dangerous neighborhood at 1am.

Interestingly, a recent study of gun violence victims in the same city of Philadelphia found that carrying a gun actually increases your chance of being shot. This incident helps illustrates why.
http://static.ow.ly/docs/AJPH.GunControl_eD.pdf

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in
an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault
and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from
2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P<.05)
times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among
gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted
odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P<.05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them
from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur
each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban
areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least,
understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
(Am J Public Health. 2009;99:XXX–XXX. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099)

[gejohnston]

31. don't get it

You treat these Joyce echo chamber shill jobs as "reliable science" but reject nonbiased work from real criminologists. Can you please find one that is not funded by the Kochs of gun control?
Even if there were no guns, Eells and his friend would most likely be dead or badly beaten from the simple fact that he was outnumbered by a group of fucking asshole sociopaths willing to kill to steal a couple of bucks.

[SteveM]

42. Re-read:

"And then there's the victim's gun. The victim's choice to shoot it out rather than give up his wallet was unwise, and he is lucky to be alive."

Da thugs demanded money, and were refused. THEN one of da thugs pulled a gun and started shooting. And the would-be victim was unwise to return fire??? It was NOT about a wallet or money; it was about a man being attacked by 3 people, one firing a gun.

Who the hell are you kidding?

[DanTex]

43. Give up the wallet, don't get shot. Any questions?

The article isn't too precise about the timing of the whole thing. Most likely, the victim would have had a chance to give up his wallet after a gun was pulled on him but before he got shot. It would be a little strange if the criminal never even threatened him with the gun but just started firing.

But whatever the details, the guy knew he was getting robbed, and chose not to give up the money but instead to resist. Bad call, and I don't think he would have made that call if he wasn't carrying a gun.

[SteveM]

46. Yes. Why do you submit to da thugs? nt

[DanTex]

48. So I don't get shot.

Getting mugged occurs rarely enough that the only way it will have any serious effect on my life is if I am injured or killed.

[SteveM]

49. Trusting soul, or a good craps shooter. nt

[gravity556]

51. You somehow seem

to be under the impression that these sociopaths would refrain from shooting you once you handed over your wallet. Seems rather foolish to trust in the kindness and fairness of an individual who, by the very definition of what he does, is a piece of shit-a rotting and infected cancer on society. Do you plan on making your assailant promise (Scout's Honor!) to not shoot you or beat you into a coma?

I guess I'm just not that trusting of criminals and thugs. Good luck with the danegeld on your end, I guess...

[DanTex]

61. I go with the odds. Nothing personal.

For the most part, muggers want to get your cash and get away. They have no reason to shoot if you don't resist, in fact they have reason not to since it elevates the seriousness of the crime and brings more police attention. Of course, they are criminals so they might shoot anyway, but this is all the more reason not to do anything to provoke them.

I imagine that other non-CC Temple students have gotten mugged in the same area without getting shot. Lose some cash, cancel some credit cards, go on with life.

But then you get tough guy wannabes whose pride won't let them just turn over the "danegeld", that's who gets into shootouts. No thanks. I'll just hand over the wallet.

[friendly_iconoclast]

196. And you might just get shot anyway. Google "Surendra Dangol"

He "handed over the wallet' and was killed anyway.

[iverglas]

231. and your point is?

I'm still wondering.

Surendra Dangol had no option -- had he had access to a firearm or not.

He was surprised by someone pointing a firearm at him, who continued to point the firearm at him while he emptied the cash register. I'd say that had there been a firearm in the cash drawer, say, and he had gone for it and tried to shoot the robber, he would have got shot.

Odds depend on circumstances. In the incident I experienced, I actually did calculate the odds that I was going to die; that is exactly what I was doing as I was being choked and beginning to lose consciousness. I knew that the odds of a sexual assault ending in a homicide were extremely, extremely low, because I was employed at the time on a study of the sentencing of sexual offenders and I had reviewed the circumstances of countless incidents. But I determined that my odds of ending up dead in that particular situation, given the circumstances, were high. So I chose to stop resisting at that moment, to save my life, and bide my time until I could use another "self-protection" measure: escape. It's called using your brain.

Once again, no one is actually suggesting that anyone lock their brain down the instant they perceive a thread. Really. As you know.

[iverglas]

76. but the ROOOOT CAUSES!!!

an individual who, by the very definition of what he does, is a piece of shit-a rotting and infected cancer on society

If we want to reduce violent crime, we have to ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSES.

You know: poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, substandard housing, I dunno, whatever these root causes are that we're supposed to address. A 15-yr-old WITH A GUN? No, no, look over here, root causes, root causes!.

So how do we reconcile these bizarrely opposing notions?

There are root causes of crime, things that cause individuals to commit crimes -- i.e., obviously, individuals who would not commit crimes but for those root causes.

And then ... there are pieces of shit rotting and infected cancers on society who commit crimes.

Eh?

If they were born that way, if they were just plain born bad, then what is addressing the roooooot causes of crime going to accomplish? The root cause is that they were born bad. Nothing to be done.

But if they were made bad, by the, hm, cancers on society comprised by poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, substandard housing, then how can you portray the people who are the products of the effects of those cancers as the vile and loathsome things you call them? Surely they are VICTIMS of the cancers, they aren't the cancers.

Why don't some people's heads explode?

Apart from all that, what kind of person refers to a 15-yr-old kid as a piece of shit-a rotting and infected cancer on society?

Rhetorical question. I know the answer to that one already.

[gravity556]

132. Root causes?

Ah, I forgot. It was Marilyn Manson and 50 cent's fault. No? How about we put the budding sociopath in jail for a little while, say until he's 50 or so. And since his parents seem to have excelled in instilling their child with respect for nothing, maybe we charge them with, oh, do you think it's neglect? Letting your 15 year old wander around in the middle of the night on a school night, robbing people willy nilly and while carrying a gun (to shoot those who dare to oppose!) seems more along the endagerment line. Maybe if they spend some time in the hoosegow, say until their darling child's 21st birthday, maybe they'll try harder to keep their next kid a bit closer to the straight and narrow. If not for the sake of their kid, then maybe out of base self interest.

I just don't buy into the whole "I had a rough childhood so I rob banks" thing. You like money and you don't want to have to work like rest of society, so you figure you'll just use force to take what you feel you so richly deserve. Don't try and blame it on mommy. It's not the bank's fault either, though they should have known better-sitting in one place all the time with all that money in there, shame on them!

This shithead kid decided that he was just going to TAKE from someone else, and when they had the temerity to say no, he lost his shit. No more self control than a 2 year old, except someone at home doesn't have the good sense to put him in his playpen. And this probably isn't his first robbery. If it comes up that he's been arrested before, then I'll revise and say that he should be in prison until he's 60. And his folks should be in until his 25th birthday.

[iverglas]

141. I don't care what you buy

or what ignorant thing you may have to say about people who are born into and live in conditions you have no clue about. I really don't. And I imagine that the people in question to whom you are offering your ignorant advice hold you in the same contempt as I do.

But you can try telling it to your fellow posters here, the ones I was addressing, the ones who are all hot to deal with those "root causes of crime".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=427032&mesg_id=427092

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=247829&mesg_id=247841

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=210629&mesg_id=210635

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=443064&mesg_id=443134

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2945214&mesg_id=2948655

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=145&topic_id=9601&mesg_id=9607

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=419534&mesg_id=419771

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=105815&mesg_id=106126

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=420297&mesg_id=420429

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3823818&mesg_id=3834803

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=195171&mesg_id=195200


Good representation of some long-time current posters in that list, along with undoubtedly the odd tombstone; I didn't do an exhaustive review. That's from the first page of google results for "root causes of crime" here at DU, almost all from this forum, the odd one from regular Guns posters when they went on patrol in other forums.

I want to hear from them.

[gravity556]

178. Aww, how sweet!

"or what ignorant thing you may have to say about people who are born into and live in conditions you have no clue about. I really don't. And I imagine that the people in question to whom you are offering your ignorant advice hold you in the same contempt as I do."

You seem to presume to know a whole bunch about how I grew up, iverglas. And the fact that someone who is of low enough character to blame the victim of a crime holds me in contempt absolutely tickles my blackened little heart. Really, you've made my whole day. I wish I could say I thought enough of you to be contemptuous, but sadly I don't. Maybe if you had the scruples to see that the criminal is the bad guy in totality I could manage contempt, but since you insist on blaming the victim, you're beneath even that. Sorry man. :(

[gejohnston]

54. I doubt it.

If you are willing to kill over being told no, you are likely to kill just for the hell of it. In other words, if no gun were involved the three fucking asshole sociopaths would have attacked him anyway.

[Atypical Liberal]

251. That's an OK choice to make.

So I don't get shot. Getting mugged occurs rarely enough that the only way it will have any serious effect on my life is if I am injured or killed.

And that is a perfectly acceptable choice to make. When you are confronted with a violent criminal, you have three choices: You can run, you can submit, or you can fight back.

Running or submitting are perfectly OK choices to make. No one can be faulted for doing what they deem best to insure their safety. If you feel that running way or giving the criminal what they want is the best course of action, then do it.

But we should not discount the courage and heroism inherent in those people who instead choose to fight back, even at great risk to themselves. Standing up to those who would do bad things, even in the face of great danger, is admirable.

I'm not saying we should encourage everyone to be heroic. But we certainly should not discourage it nor admonish those who have it in them to do it.

When good people stand up to bad people they are working to make society a better place, at real danger to themselves. Let's try rooting for the good guys once and a while.

[DissedByBush]

306. That may have been true a long time ago

These days you never know.

Better to shoot the criminal if you can.

I don't care about the sob background stories when most others in the same situation don't decide to pick up a weapon and threaten the lives of others.

IMHO, you threaten deadly harm with any weapon, your life is forfeit, period.

[iverglas]

63. can you quote that for us please?

Da thugs demanded money, and were refused. THEN one of da thugs pulled a gun and started shooting.

It may be there somewhere in the police reports / news reports (and in that case it might also be one party's version, of course) -- but I haven't seen that timeline established, so maybe you can point me.

-- Ah, pardon me, this other report does say:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/warrington/warrington-man-shoots-back-at-would-be-robber/article_cdf5decf-b2ac-504d-a169-abc463e0c1a6.html

But Eells was no easy mark. He refused to hand over money and the teenager started firing. Eells was hit in the stomach, but returned fire with his own handgun, striking the teen in the leg and torso, according to police. The teen’s accomplices ran away. Eells and Thompson were both taken to Temple University Hospital. ... The bullet passed through his body but doctors made an 8-inch incision to repair his internal organs.

Dunno, the sequence seems a little odd to me. I'm sure the police will be investigating thoroughly.

[GreenStormCloud]

145. The timeline is fuzzy only to a sophist who wants it to be fuzzy. N/T

[iverglas]

146. the timeline is fuzzy to any honest person

whose interest is in truth, not in advancing a stinking agenda.

[GreenStormCloud]

164. What is the meaning of "is"? Sophistry. Great for muddying the waters. N/T

[gravity556]

188. So you're saying you're having a hard time

with the timeline then?

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. The victim fired only after being shot, but please *do* go on blaming him for this

The victim's choice to shoot it out rather than give up his wallet was unwise.

Can we assume your other posts are of similar accuracy?

[iverglas]

79. can we assume you have inside knowledge?

If you're going to make flat assertions like

The victim fired only after being shot, but please *do* go on blaming him for this

you'd better have heard both sides of this story and, in the event that they differ (which they might, since we seem to have heard only one side), have a very good basis for choosing one over the other.

That one just isn't making good sense to some of us -- robber demands money, upon meeting refusal pulls out gun and shoots victim, just like that, no further demand for money, no aggressive move by the victim, victim who has been shot and critically injured then pulls out gun and shoots robber. Just not making good sense.

But certainly you have a firm foundation for advancing it as fact. Right?

[gejohnston]

84. some times truth is stranger than fiction

some people are just sociopaths. A lot of true things don't make sense.

[oneshooter]

137. All of them I have read were. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

142. That study has been debunked here.

Most of the gun carriers who were shot were themselves criminals. A large percentage of them were "mutual combat" meaning they were thugs that were looking for each other. In mutual combat somebody with a gun is going to get shot. The study makes no attempt to sort out responsible citizens from criminals and then tries to apply the results to everybody.

[DanTex]

170. LOL. "debunked" by a bunch of militant gun advocates with no scientific credentials...

I get it though. The holy church of CCW doesn't like peer reviewed science any more than creationists do.

I bet several other Temple students have been mugged in that neighborhood, but it took a CCW hero to foolishly resist and in the process get shot. Coincidence? Well, maybe, after all, it's just one datapoint. Anecdotally, it does seem that, at least among Temple students, the toters have fared worse than the non-toters. But what would be much better would be a rigorous, controlled scientific study of gun carrying versus gun crime victimization in the same town of Philly. Does that sound good?

Oh wait, I forgot that, no matter what the science shows, some gun blog will toss up a few talking points, and from that moment on the CCW church and its adherents will forever consider the study to be "debunked". I could almost guarantee that you have never actually read the study, because if you did you would find that, for example, the study did control for things like criminal record, drug use, etc. In fact, I would even guess that you don't know how case-control studies actually work. Not that there's any shame in that, except that when I don't understand things, I generally don't go around blathering about how debunked they are.

In any case, let's be honest: your rejection of this study, or any of the many other studies with similar findings, it has nothing to do with objections to the research protocols. It's just that, when the science and the data stand in between you and your gun beliefs, then science kinda loses it's appeal.

[GreenStormCloud]

187. I listed specific objections.

The study made no effort to distinguish between street criminals and honest citizens, but lumps them together. That is a valid objection, as the two groups of people have radically different behaviors.

You are trying to use The Argument From Authority as if I am supposed to bow before them. I responded by pointing out a problem with the study. You don't need a PhD to realize that gangbangers and legally licensed citizens behave differently. An attempt to apply stats gained from gangsters to regular people is faulty.

Prediction: Instead of adressing the issue that I raised, you will insult me, claiming I am unscientific.

[DanTex]

189. But those objections are completely baseless.

The study did distinguish between criminals and honest citizens, and if you read the study, you would know that.

Of course, only in NRA propaganda is the world as simple as "gangster" vs "non-gangster". In reality, there are a lot of potentially confounding factors that could affect the odds that someone would be carrying a gun at the time they are shot. That's why, in addition to just controlling for criminal record, the study was also controlled for things like education, race, income, high-risk profession. It was controlled for alcohol and drug use. Also it was controlled for situational factors like being indoors versus outdoors, being in a crowded area or being around illegal drug trafficking. It was controlled for the level of unemployment and income level in the vicinity of shootings. And so on.

So, you see, far from the caricature that the researchers failed to distinguish between criminals and non-criminals, the researchers actually took into account a very rich set of features that could potentially affect the odds ratios. The odds ratios were then calculated based on a multivariate statistical analysis that controls for all these factors. I'm sure this all sounds like witchcraft to you, but I can assure you that case-control studies with multivariate analysis are pretty much bread-and-butter stuff.

One lesson here is that scientists generally aren't nearly as dumb as politically motivated denialists like to pretend they are. Whenever you see someone claim that "you don't need a PhD" to casually dismiss a large number of peer-reviewed studies in top science journals, that's a pretty big red flag.

Prediction: instead of actually reading the study and trying to understand the methodology, you will keep using the "Appeal to Authority" argument to ignore evidence that doesn't confirm your preexisting beliefs.

[GreenStormCloud]

197. Is this the study you are reffering to?

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1087&context=dennis_culhane

Nov 2009 Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault

On page 3 of the report is an interesting data table. It shows that 53% of the armed victims had prior arrest records. So from that we learn the armed criminals are themselves at risk of getting shot. Criminals shooting criminals. Since both are armed, having a gun isn't going to help one or both of them.

24% were in high-risk occupations. Are we to believe that not having a gun would have made their occupations safer?

The study makes absolutely no mention of any effort to determine if the armed victim had a Pennsylvania License To Carry Firearm. (LTCF) If the armed person did not have an LTCF, then unless they were otherwise in a place where it was legal for them to have a firearm, they were carrying illegally. There does not appear to be any control for legal vs illegal possession.

Why did they exclude gun injuries of undetermined intent? That phrase is CDC-speak for "legally shot in self-defense by an armed citizen."

The study started with a flawed premise. It started with the premise of studying the shooting victims to see the correlation of gun owners and non gun owners. A valid conclusion for that study is: "if you get shot, you are over 4 times more likely to be a gun owner." This is not the same as "gun owners are over 4 times more likely to be shot."

Why are they including this:

Case participants with at least some chance to resist were typically either 2-sided, mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument...

What the hell? Duels are clearly illegal. Those are situations of a couple of criminals hunting each other, both armed. Of course somebody with a gun is going to get shot in that kind of situation. The gun is not being used in self-defense.

The study does not identify any LTCF holders or LTCF data, therefore it can't say anything about LTCF people. LTCF is License To Carry Firearm.

I am not appealing to an argument from authority, I am showing the holes in the authority you are holding up. Where is the LTCF data?

[DanTex]

207. It helps if you actually understand the methodology of a study you are trying to critique.

What you need to do is google "case-control study" and "multivariate regression", and then do some reading. Another time, I might write a longer post with some explanation of how this all works. But I just don't feel like it right now.

[GreenStormCloud]

220. In other words you dodge the specific objections I raised.

Further you retreat to the argument from authority and claim that I am ignorant. I point out a glaring error in logic and you ignore it. I will repeat it. The people who were shot were 4.5X times more likely to be armed, but that does NOT mean that being armed makes you 4.5X more likely to be shot. Consider this example: That 100% of those shot were breathing at the time does not mean that breathing makes you 100% likely to get shot.

There is NO LTCF data. How then can the study say anything about LTCF people?

All you have done is this thread is insult and claim the authors are an authority. I have challenged their authority is specific ways. Your run from that.

[DanTex]

228. Blah

I point out a glaring error in logic and you ignore it. I will repeat it. The people who were shot were 4.5X times more likely to be armed, but that does NOT mean that being armed makes you 4.5X more likely to be shot. Consider this example: That 100% of those shot were breathing at the time does not mean that breathing makes you 100% likely to get shot.
I hate to disappoint you, but, shockingly, you have not found a glaring error in the logic of this and probably thousands of other studies which use the same well-established methodology. If you had googled "case-control study" like I suggested, and done some reading, you could have answered this question yourself. Since getting shot is a very rare event, then the ratio of the odds of carrying a gun for shooting victims versus non-victims gives an accurate estimate of the relative risk of being shot for gun carriers versus non gun-carriers.

Re: the breathing example, 100% of those who were not shot were also breathing, so this would lead you to conclude, correctly, that breathing does not affect your chances of getting shot either way.

There is NO LTCF data. How then can the study say anything about LTCF people?
There is also no data for people over 6 foot 2. How can the study say anything about tall people? The reason there is no LTCF data is that they already collected data for arrest record, drug use, alcohol use, being in a neighborhood with drug activity, and a bunch of other factors that reflect on whether someone is likely to be responsible and law abiding or prone to risky or criminal behavior.

[GreenStormCloud]

235. The correlation is a one-way correlation.

You don't know how many people who were carrying or had a gun close at hand and were not shot. The best that you can say is that in that study the people who were shot were 4.5X more likely to have a gun available. You can't reverse the correlation. Logic doesn't allow it. You can't say that having a gun makes you 4.5X times more likely to be shot.

You are merely speculating on why there is no LTCF data. I have a different speculation. There is no LTCF data because probably no LTCF people were shot. People who are licensed to carry concealed have a strongly different set of behaviors than the vast majority of the shooting victims in the study. We are more educated, have clean police records, are older (Most of us are 45+), are more affluent, don't drink to excess or use drugs, and we strongly try to avoid trouble. We definitely don't engage in duels. Our behaviors and demographics are the opposite of the group that was studied, therefore I don't believe that the results of the study have any relevance to me. If I go into the high-crime area of a major city at night then they might have relevance.

Why is does the report hide self-defense shootings under the label "undetermined intent"? To me that is dishonest.

BTW - I am NOT anti-science. My college major was math (two courses in prob/stat) with a minor in physics. Over the past 40 years I have subscribed to several science magazines, such as Discover, Scientific American, Science News, and others. You would do well to hold off on your accusations and condescension.

[DanTex]

237. There is no such thing as a "one-way correlation".

Also, yes, the study did measure how likely people who did not get shot were to be carrying a gun. That's the "control" part of the "case-control" study. The results of the study are based on comparing people who did get shot with people who did not get shot, and adjusting for other potential confounding factors. And yes, you can "reverse the correlation" as you put it, provided that you are dealing with a rare event like getting shot, because, as I pointed out in my last post, in this situation the odds ratio will give a good approximation of relative risk. It's just arithmetic.

In any case, believe what you want. If you are actually interested in learning about the methodology in more detail, as opposed to insisting that you have uncovered a fatal flaw in this basic, widely used, and well-understood study design, then maybe some day you will get around to googling "case-control study" and reading about it. If not, then just go on patting yourself on the back.

Sorry if I come off as condescending, but what I am saying here is correct. If your college major was actually math, then you will be able to quickly read up and understand how it works, because in the end it is not all that complicated.

[GreenStormCloud]

239. That all A are B does not mean that all B are A..

Surely you should know that.

Why didn't they have a category for "lawfully shot in self-defense". Even the CDC page doesn't have that put calls it "undetermined intent". Take a look: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Do you really believe that a study of criminals getting shot has anything meaningful to say to the law-abiding public?

[DanTex]

240. Do you really not know what a correlation is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence

The correlation coefficient is symmetric: corr(X,Y) = corr(Y,X).

Your major was math? Really?

[GreenStormCloud]

243. The study wasn't able to establish that kind of correlation.

That the people who were shot were 4.5X more likely to have a gun handy does not mean that a gun makes you 4.5X more likely to get shot.

Further, what does a study of criminals have to say about law-abiding folks?

[DanTex]

252. OK, you win I'll explain...

Let's say that:

A = got shot, carrying
B = got shot, not carrying
C = not shot, carrying
D = not shot, not carrying

The first thing we do is measure odds of carrying a gun for people who got shot and who didn't. Odds are slightly different than the probability, and shortly you'll see why we are going with odds. So we have

A/B = odds of carrying a gun for people who got shot.
C/D = odds of carrying a gun for people who did not get shot.

I hope you're with me so far, and you agree that the study was able to measure both of these odds, by sampling randomly from people who got shot (cases) and people who did not get shot (controls).

OK, so next step, we compute the odds ratio, which is simply the ratio of the two odds:

(A/B) / (C/D) = odds ratio.

Now we do some algebra:

(A/B) / (C/D) = (A*D)/(B*C) = (A/C) / (B/D).

So you see, the odds ratio is the same either way. That is, if the odds of carrying a gun are 4.5X higher among people who got shot versus those who didn't, then mathematically, this means that the odds of being shot are 4.5X higher for people who are carrying a gun.

OK, last step. Really what we want is not the odds ratio, but the relative risk. The risk, or probability of getting shot for someone carrying a gun is A/(A+C), which is the fraction of all gun carriers who ended up getting shot. And, the risk of getting shot for non-carriers is B/(B+D). This is where the rare disease assumption comes in to play. Since a very small fraction of either carriers or non-carriers actually ends up getting shot, this means that C is much bigger than A, and D is much bigger than B. This means that the odds of getting shot A/C is a very good approximation of the risk of getting shot A/(A+C), and also that B/D is a good approximation for B/(B+D).

And so, the odds ratio does in fact yield an accurate estimation of the relative risk. Hope that helps clear things up.

[jmg257]

254. Dig math - not statistics - THAT is pretty cool! Thanks again! nt

[GreenStormCloud]

263. The odds of getting shot are not truly random.

Guns are not bullet magnets. They don't radiate a force field that causes bullets to curve in midair and come to the armed person. What the study shows is what everybody already knew, that certain behaviors greatly elevate one's risk of being shot. Being a violent criminal in a street gang is extremely high risk. It is no surprise that people with those behaviors also carry guns. That is part and parcel of being a street drug dealer or gang member. Their guns are carried illegally but the study makes no effort to determine between legal and illegal carry. You have established nothing more than that gang members and those who live close to them, as well as a few legitimate high risk occupations, are at high risk of being shot. And that people who perceive themselves at such high risk frequently choose to have a gun available.

You have not demonstrated that having a gun CAUSES a person to have a higher risk. I suggest that having a higher risk causes a person to get a gun.

You have not established that LTCF people are at an increased risk simply because they have a gun on. The person who behavior places them in a very low risk demographic is not going to suddenly become a bullet magnet because they have a gun handy.

I have asked this question several times with no answer. Why does the CDC ignore self-defense shootings? Notice that one this CDC page there is no category for self-defence. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html Go to the definitions page and there is no mention of self-defense at all. Yet we know that self-defence shooting do occur. Don't you find it odd that the CDC ignores them completely?

[TPaine7]

208. If you do not have a degree in medicine or epidemiology, you are unqualified to question anything

in this study. Perhaps there are some other disciplines that would qualify, perhaps a PhD in chemistry.

And the CDC is an unbiased source that just wants to do the right thing:

Sick People With Guns
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C. Author: William Raspberry Date: Oct 19, 1994 Start Page: a.23 Section: OP/ED Text Word Count: 703


My first thought was to recall Abraham Maslow's aphorism: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails." Now I'm beginning to wonder if Mark Rosenberg's notion isn't worth a second thought.

Rosenberg's weird-sounding (at first) idea is that the way to combat criminal violence is to treat it the way we treat infectious diseases: as a public health problem amenable to causal research, therapy and prevention.

Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has.

...

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol - cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly - and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

The idea of pretending that "the infectious disease approach" is applicable to gun crime and that epidemiologists and the like are equipped to study it, and marshaling their united "peer reviewed" "scientific" "studies" to show the correct, pre-determined TRUTH about guns in America was laid out way back in 1994.

Of course, unless you are an epidemiologist or part of the CDC you are unqualified to draw any conclusions that do not support gun control from this evidence.

[DanTex]

209. Ignorance is bliss...

How silly of me to think that in order to really understand a case-control study with a multivariate regression that it helps to be familiar with case-control studies and multivariate regressions.

But I guess since, for the most part, the pro-gunners have already made up their minds regardless of what the facts or science show, then why bother educating yourself. On the other hand, it would be kind of funny to come across a scientifically literate pro-gunner just once. I mean, you'd stick out like a sore thumb with the NRA/gun show crowd, they'd treat you like some kind of space alien.

"Science! Isn't that the monkey stuff that libruls want to teach our kids!"

[jmg257]

210. "pro gunners have already made up their minds"...NOW u are starting to understand!

People make up their own minds usually based on their own experiences, fears, abilities, etc.

I'll be honest, I don't really give a shit about what happens to a large percentage of unemployed high alcohol and drug user/dealing gun carriers who go looking for conflicts in Phili...Their experiences with guns are just about meaningless to me in making my decisions with regards to my personal use of firearms.

[DanTex]

211. "We didn't crawl out from under no rocks. We didn't have no tails. And we didn't come from no...

...monkeys you atheist pinko meathead."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4czdTaUQVg

[jmg257]

212. Sorry not going to click on the link...was there a point you wished to convey? Nt

[jmg257]

218. Nothing else?

No help as to why the typical gun owners you are on this forum with should be particularly concerned with this study?

Now I am indeed no statistical expert, but the cases described in the study:

"However, compared with control participants,
shooting case participants were significantly
more often Hispanic, more frequently working
in high-risk occupations, less educated, and
had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the
time of shooting, case participants were also
significantly more often involved with alcohol
and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where
more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals
resided. Case participants were also more
likely to be located in areas with less income and
more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

really don't seem all that relevant to the choices about gun ownership that a well-employed middle age white guy with no history of criminal activiy or drug use living in upstate NY.

I really would like to understand your point better, so please enlighten me!

[TPaine7]

215. You would know.

Here are a couple of straightforward yes or no questions for you:

1) Do you believe that Mark Rosenberg's clearly stated intention--as director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control--is accurately reported in my quotation?

2) Do you believe that a man in his position and with his power was alone in the medical community in his purpose and clear intent?

3) Do you believe that it is scientifically valid to start out with a conclusion already formed?

4) Do you believe that case control study techniques and multivariate regression are relevant to any of the above questions?

Let's see how many of those you manage to DIRECTLY answer.

The worst type of ignorance is not ignorance of multivariate regression or of case control study methodology but moral ignorance. One particularly virulent strain of moral ignorance is the type that hides dishonesty behind imagined "scientific" and "technical" superiority.

Your tactics remind me of a guy I debated once who said that people who don't understand the nitty gritty of IT have no right to criticize government technological spying on the innocent. I explained that that is morally as legitimate (in type not in degree) as saying that a victim of date rape has no right to complain unless she has a profound understanding of bio-chemistry and could technically address the science of her attacker's date rape drug.

Multivariate regression is neither here nor there if one knows one's answer in advance. Your retreat to the technical is telling. I understand a lot of technology and some statistics. (I took a statistics class a couple of years ago and finished at the top of my class; every grade was an A, not one below 95%, IIRC. We covered regression, though not multivariate regression.) I don't claim to be an expert in statistics by any means. It was not an advanced class.

Hiding behind technology, especially as a refuge against questions regarding basic honesty and morality, is a red flag. It is well said that you don't understand anything that you can't explain in non-technical language. Perhaps YOU don't really understand multivariate regression or case-control study methods. Or perhaps you realize that the CDC and other epidemiological gun crime "experts" have a clear agenda and you are attempting to blind people to that fact with "science."

[DanTex]

222. An A in statistics!

Just to review, this discussion got kicked off when someone claimed the Branas study had been "debunked". Later posts by the same person made it clear that they have no grasp of that study's methodology. Is it too much to ask that when someone claims that a peer-reviewed study in an established scientific journal has been "debunked" that said person should have the first clue about the how the actual science works?

It's true that, ideally, rather than just repond dismissively, I could write a nice long post explaining, in detail, how these studies work and why the supposed refutations are bogus. Something I've done on other occasions like this. But eventually one grows weary of explaining over and over again that no (sigh) the theory of evolution is not refuted by the fact that monkeys don't turn into humans before our very eyes.

The same goes for your conspiracy theory, which is little more than an attempt to divert attention from the fact that (a) the actual science doesn't say what you would like it to say and (b) you are unable to coherently challenge the research on substantive grounds. But, like most accusations of conspiratorial bias, it's plainly absurd. You are suggesting that dozens of highly reputed researchers knowingly publish bad science. Not just that there are errors or limitations, but that the research is so obviously tainted that it is not even necessary to understand the science in order to reject it offhand.

Of course, a bunch of top universities (Harvard, JHopkins, etc.) would have to be in on the scam, because academic dishonesty is grounds for dismissal at all these places. And the conspirators must have people placed on the editorial boards of various journals (and not obscure ones, we're talking JAMA and NEJM) who are willing to subvert the peer review process to get this stuff published. All this with absolutely no profit motive whatsoever -- I guess gun-grabbing is its own reward. The conspiracy has been going on for decades, and for some reason nobody in the scientific community at large has found out. Just you and a bunch of other primarily right-wing gun advocates, most of whom believe that both global warming and evolution are also liberal academic conspiracies.

And the evidence for this is a quote from a guy at the CDC in 1994? LOL. At least the global warming deniers have their little "climategate" scandal, which, while it amounts to nothing, at least consists of emails from actual scientists using words like "trick" that, when taken out of context, seem to suggest wrongdoing.

[jmg257]

224. I definitely like reading your responses better when when they are

not full of hate and insults. Sucks when someone starts out seemingly intelligent, articulate and well-reasoned, and then transforms in just a few posts to name calling, and insulting the intelligence level of those who disagree with him/her. Such behavior isn't very conducive to anyone learning or understanding anything.


Would you mind, and I don't want you to have to get bogged down with details etc. as I can understand how annoying that can be, explaining why the data gathered in the study is relevant to the rest of us? From reading it, it seems that your average gun owners weren't the target audience, as I seem to have very little in common with the study groups. Was the study really '...controlled for things like education, race, income, high-risk profession, etc. etc.'? I didn't see where it said that, and it also seemed at least an overly large portion of the very small sample they studied were exactly high-risk, drug using/dealing, alcohol abusive, score settling criminal types.

How are we to associate ourselves with a study group where:

53% had previous arrests
26% had alcohol involvement
12% were involved in drugs

88% were black
7% were hispanic

and where case study shootings were very likely to be located in areas where illegal drug trafficking was prevalent, and where numerous victims and offenders went looking for conflicts.

Thanks ahead of time!

[DanTex]

227. Hate and insults? Like calling someone an "insulting and pompous ass with no credibility"

and calling what they have to say "uninformed opinionated & usually hateful bullshit". Is that the kind of thing that bothers you?

Honestly, I agree. Whoever posted that stuff really needs to tone it down. Or at the very least hold back the "stop being so insulting" card, if only to avoid the frightening levels of hypocrisy.


Anyway, this study was about shootings that took place in an urban environment, in Philly. I posted it because the OP was also about a shooting that took place in Philly. It may not be relevant to you, it was meant to be relevant to the incident described in the OP, where someone carrying a gun outdoors in a dangerous neighborhood in Philly at 1am got shot, while his non-gun carrying friend, standing there in the same dangerous outdoor neighborhood at 1am didn't get shot.

And, by and large, the study found that after controlling for factors like race, education, criminal record, etc., people in Philly who were carrying a gun were more likely to be shot than people who were not. Yes, the study was actually controlled for these and other factors listed in table 1:

We adjusted all regression models for yearly age (to control for residual variability within age groups that remained after matching) and numerous other potential individual and situational confounders based on previous work and theory (Table 1).

If you don't feel like this study group is anything like you, that's fine. It is true that the study consisted mostly of black males. This is because black males account for the vast majority of shooting victims in Philly. However, less than half of the subjects had been arrested (53% of the cases and 37% of the controls, so about 45% overall), which is still a much higher rate than the general population (I believe around 15%), but it is simply inaccurate to say that the results of the study are due to effects of criminals and alcohol abusers. Particularly since any confounding (the possibility that, for example, the link between getting shot and carrying a gun can be explained by the fact that people with a criminal record are more likely to both get shot and carry a gun, thus creating an indirect, non-causal correlation) through factors in table 1, including arrest record and alcohol use, was controlled for and would not have affected the results.

One last point. A favorite challenge to this and other similar studies is to claim that the results are not relevant because the sample population has a higher rate of arrests than the general population, and thus they are "high-risk, drug using/dealing, alcohol abusive, score settling criminal types". But on the other hand, when it comes to the more pro-gun studies like, say Gary Kleck's infamous survey claiming millions of defensive gun uses per year, none of the same people seem to object to the idea of counting DGUs by "criminal types" or unlicensed carriers as part of the total. After all, the high-risk criminal types are not only more likely to carry a gun, but also more likely to find themselves in a dangerous situation that would result in a DGU, so a large fraction of these DGUs are likely to come from them. So, next time you hear somebody claiming some outlandish total number of defensive gun uses, keep in mind that the number reflects mostly criminal types defending themselves from each other, and the number of legitimate DGUs by average people like yourself is actually very small.

[jmg257]

229. Thank you - and points taken. Except that guy's stuff really is....

Have you read some of it? ;) I thought that response of mine was pretty good! Anyway - I'll let you form your own opinions on his take on things, his assumptions, his opinions on gun owners and criminals, and his replies to posts, etc.


Thanks for the explanation and understanding on the info presented in the data, and how it may or may not apply...it is appreciated!

Cheers!

[TPaine7]

238. A very logical point. Thank you.

One last point. A favorite challenge to this and other similar studies is to claim that the results are not relevant because the sample population has a higher rate of arrests than the general population, and thus they are "high-risk, drug using/dealing, alcohol abusive, score settling criminal types". But on the other hand, when it comes to the more pro-gun studies like, say Gary Kleck's infamous survey claiming millions of defensive gun uses per year, none of the same people seem to object to the idea of counting DGUs by "criminal types" or unlicensed carriers as part of the total. After all, the high-risk criminal types are not only more likely to carry a gun, but also more likely to find themselves in a dangerous situation that would result in a DGU, so a large fraction of these DGUs are likely to come from them. So, next time you hear somebody claiming some outlandish total number of defensive gun uses, keep in mind that the number reflects mostly criminal types defending themselves from each other, and the number of legitimate DGUs by average people like yourself is actually very small.

Thanks for a thought provoking post. That is a very logical argument. (Though I don't believe that it follows that the number of legitiimate DGUs by average people is necessarily "very small." A fairly small percentage of 3M can still be quite significant.)

[Euromutt]

301. Regarding your "one last point" there...

While it's perfectly true that a large number of Kleck & Gertz's cases were instances in which the person performing the DGU possessed the firearm illegally at the time, that does not make the DGU itself illegitimate. The Writ of Outlawry was abolished in the 17th century (to be supplanted by the doctrine of habeas corpus), and it remains a criminal offense to assault someone even if that individual frequently engages in criminal activity himself. Accordingly, such an individual is within his rights to defend himself against such an assault, and therefore, one cannot make a distinction between "criminal types defending themselves from each other" on the one hand and "legitimate DGUs" on the other as if the former were not legitimate, because legally, they are.

[TPaine7]

241. Yes, an A in statistics!

My point being that if you are able to teach I am able to learn, based on past experience in the same subject.

Just to review, this discussion got kicked off when someone claimed the Branas study had been "debunked". Later posts by the same person made it clear that they have no grasp of that study's methodology. Is it too much to ask that when someone claims that a peer-reviewed study in an established scientific journal has been "debunked" that said person should have the first clue about the how the actual science works?

Mea culpa. My jab about your tactics was undeserved; your response was on point whereas the guy's I compared yours to was totally illegitimate.

It's true that, ideally, rather than just repond dismissively, I could write a nice long post explaining, in detail, how these studies work and why the supposed refutations are bogus. Something I've done on other occasions like this. But eventually one grows weary of explaining over and over again that no (sigh) the theory of evolution is not refuted by the fact that monkeys don't turn into humans before our very eyes.

Perhaps a link would suffice?

The same goes for your conspiracy theory, which is little more than an attempt to divert attention from the fact that (a) the actual science doesn't say what you would like it to say and (b) you are unable to coherently challenge the research on substantive grounds. But, like most accusations of conspiratorial bias, it's plainly absurd. You are suggesting that dozens of highly reputed researchers knowingly publish bad science. Not just that there are errors or limitations, but that the research is so obviously tainted that it is not even necessary to understand the science in order to reject it offhand.

I did not put forth a conspiracy theory. Nor did I suggest that purposeful distortion necessarily is a large factor. I seriously doubt that the director saw his approach as bad science--so he was not, in his worldview, doing anything illicit. I do suggest that if the participants in studies all have the same outlooks, funding and biases they are likely to reach similar results. Perhaps my reservation on this point is the result of ignorance; maybe the disputes in the medical/epidimiological community are not mostly about exactly how bad guns are and how completely and in what ways access to them should be restricted.

Of course, a bunch of top universities (Harvard, JHopkins, etc.) would have to be in on the scam, because academic dishonesty is grounds for dismissal at all these places. And the conspirators must have people placed on the editorial boards of various journals (and not obscure ones, we're talking JAMA and NEJM) who are willing to subvert the peer review process to get this stuff published. All this with absolutely no profit motive whatsoever -- I guess gun-grabbing is its own reward. The conspiracy has been going on for decades, and for some reason nobody in the scientific community at large has found out. Just you and a bunch of other primarily right-wing gun advocates, most of whom believe that both global warming and evolution are also liberal academic conspiracies.

First, an important issue in peer review is the competence of the reviewer. That is a substantive argument, whether or not you ever admit it. I readily see that JAMA and the NEJM would be expected to have competence in gunshot wound analysis and mortality. I readily admit that doctors--especially epidemiologists--can be very competent in multivariate regression and advanced statistical techniques. What I have a big problem with is the idea that a medical degree or a background in studying the spread and effects of diseases can prepare one to study the efficacy of carrying arms.

Furthermore, if you extend your view beyond medical journals and look at history and law it is easy to see that prominent and respected people doing what it takes to get the right result is not impossible. The tip of the iceberg is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America making up his own facts (and getting the majority of the Court to go along) in spite of the fact that anyone who took the time to read the dissent could see that he was lying trough hs teeth--or his pen. ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=176226&mesg_id=176809 )

That is, as I put it, the very tip of the iceberg. There have been lots of distortions, perversions and outright lies in support of gun control and racism by elite, respected, "honorable" people.

But let's go to a subject you and I (almost certainly) agree on. I believe that cigarettes are bad for one's health. I believe that the "conspiracy" to ban them in some places and to make them less glamorous has saved many lives. But I also believe, being a realist about human nature, that there were many abuses of the scientific method when "everyone" got on the same page about tobacco. I also believe that anyone who abused the scientific method in support of the prevailing agenda was extremely unlikely to be caught by peer review and even less likely to be disciplined.

It would not surprise me in the least if the same were true of our "war on drugs"--at least in its peak of popularity. I could easily accept that the scientific method was seriously abused in support of the anti drug agenda without serious consequences. I am very sure that kids are being told gross exaggerations and outright lies about the dangers of drugs--in support of a view I favor.

Please note carefully that my skepticism is based in my understanding of human nature, NOT on my support of illegal drugs or cigarettes.

And the evidence for this is a quote from a guy at the CDC in 1994? LOL. At least the global warming deniers have their little "climategate" scandal, which, while it amounts to nothing, at least consists of emails from actual scientists using words like "trick" that, when taken out of context, seem to suggest wrongdoing.

No, there is more evidence. There is some, IIRC, that was actually published in the JAMA itself. But beyond that there is a deep and broad history of distortion, contortion, obfuscation, misinformation, lies and even official crime in support of gun control.

I think our different views on human motivations and their consequences may be just as profound as our differences on guns: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=460088&mesg_id=460329 .

In any event, I have been much more impressed with your arguments today than when I followed a link to one of your critiques of Kleck's study before. Thanks for giving me some things to think about. And I apologize for my unjustified characterization of your argument in my prior post.

[DanTex]

262. Science does not get credibility from authority.

It's the training and the protocols they follow. This doesn't mean the scientific consensus is always right, and it certainly doesn't mean all peer reviewed studies are valid. But most of the time, the scientific consensus does get things right, particularly over time.

BTW, you got the smoking/tobacco thing backward. You speculate that once the scientific consensus agreed that smoking was bad, they then abused the scientific method to produce research to support this view in order to get people to quit. But actually the studies came first, and only after a lot of research did the link become widely accepted. Actually, the first such studies, by Richard Doll, used the same case control methodology that the Branas study I linked to -- Doll and his studies helped broaden the acceptance and use of this methodology. But I digress, here's an article about it, if you're interested:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2589239/pdf/yjbm00061-0033.pdf

Also, I think it was you who once brought up the story that at one point the consensus among physicists was that the flight of bumblebees violated well-accepted theories. I actually like the bumblebee story, and I like it because it is not true. The fact that it gets repeated a lot shows that people like the idea that in a few minutes of casual "common sense" reflection, an untrained person can uncover a glaring flaw in the scientific consensus. And the fact that it is a myth illustrates that in most cases such people are wrong, that scientists are not as dumb or herd-minded as people would like to assume.

Regarding the whole epidemiology versus criminology thing, again I see this as just another excuse to toss out evidence that doesn't point in one direction. Public health researchers have plenty of experience studying issues like safety, and also conducting statistical studies, which is what most of the gun research entails. Gun research is interdisciplinary, and and it involves people from public health, economics, and sociology, and there are a lot of collaborations. If you want, you can mount a case against any of these three fields, but in the end it comes down to the quality of the research. I also notice that people making this argument rarely give any specifics about how the limitations of epidemiologists affects their work here. People will say that they treat guns like germs, but this is is not true in any meaningful sense -- it's just another example, like the bumblebee, of people thinking that in ten minutes they can come up with a fatal and clever-sounding flaw that invalidates decades of research.

For example, think about the big influential study on the pro-gun side, which is a telephone survey asking people whether they used a gun defensively. What, exactly, makes a sociologist so much better at conducting phone surveys than economists or epidemiologists? In this case, if anything, the epidemiologists would be in a better position, because Kleck's primary flaw is something that epidemiologists would be familiar with: if you try and measure something very rare like DGU, your results are extremely sensitive to false positives. To take an extreme example, if we did a similar phone survey to estimate how many people contacted aliens in the last year, we would likely come up with a similar estimate of around 1% or 2.5M, just like DGU (and maybe even more), because, a small but positive percentage of survey respondents will say yes to anything. If you are measuring something where the true rate is closer to 50%, then you don't get this same problem, but when you are dealing with percentages near either 0% or 100%, things work out differently.

And even if you disagree about the merits of this study, it's difficult to argue that a sociology background makes you better equipped to analyze this kind of data than economics or epidemiology. After all, what is really required is knowledge of statistics, specific knowledge about phone surveys, knowledge of other data that can be used for external validation, knowledge of study protocols, etc. The point is, for research like this, what it says on your PhD is less important than whether you are a competent scientist with the right kind of technical knowledge.

As far as human nature and bias and all that, yes there is bias. And you left out maybe the biggest source of bias in academic research, which is careerism. Academics don't care about gun politics nearly as much as they care about their own careers and fame. That's why, once someone has a reputation and a staked-out position, future research by that person is very likely to come out on the same side as the earlier stuff. If you think that someone like Kleck's motivation to defend his turf is any weaker than someone like Hemenway's, you are kidding yourself. It doesn't mean the research is all garbage, they still have to do quality work and get it through the referees into the journals.

But it does mean that you look to the science itself, rather than toss out a big chunk of it because of some guy at the CDC or the fact that a PhD says epidemiology rather than sociology.

[iverglas]

266. an interesting thing to note on qualifications

One of the gun militants' favourite "scientists" when it comes to mounting their case is a guy called Gary Mauser ... a professor emeritus of business at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

His total lack of academic credentials in the field he has chosen to spout off in doesn't ever seem to bother anybody. ;)

http://www.ccrkba.org/?p=2026

Gary Mauser <"Gun Rights Defender of the Month">
Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

When the Obama administration announced it was reversing U.S. policy and would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, the scholarly work of Gary Mauser took on increased significance. The Obama decision overturns the Bush administration opposition to such a treaty because it felt national controls were better and obviated the possibility of international interference with Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Professor Mauser has written extensively on the inadvisability of certain international restrictions on gun ownership. “When I heard Gary speak at our recent Gun Rights Policy Conference, I knew that this was the time to nominate him for the CCRKBA Gun Rights Defender of the Month Award,” said John M. Snyder, CCRKBA Director of Public Affairs. Mauser speaks out publicly against the United Nations Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. He and others know the Program is a scam for an international body to curtail citizens’ gun rights by declaring certain of their activities “illicit.” He attacks the phony rationale used to advance the Program. “It is a myth that more civilian guns mean more murders,” writes Mauser, Professor Emeritus at Simon Fraser University in Canada. “My analysis of a United Nations survey of 33 nations found no meaningful relationship between homicide rates and gun ownership. ..." ...

Snork.

[DanTex]

271. And then there's lawyer/libertarian Don Kates.

Of course, some lawyers are indeed capable of analyzing statistical data properly, just not him.

Not sure if you've ever come across this hilarious little Kates/Mauser nugget of academic incompetence (giving them the benefit of the doubt).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

There are an infinite number of problems with this paper, but the most amusing can be found in Table 1, European Gun Ownership and Murder Rates. The authors have Luxembourg listed as having a 9.01/100K homicide rate in 2002. And it's not like this is a harmless data entry problem, because the authors refer to Luxembourg more than once in the text, and even highlight the Luxembourg homicide rate in Table 2. So the authors definitely took note of the number, it wasn't just hidden away in some appendix.

The problem is that the homicide rate in Luxembourg is nowhere near 9/100K. What seems to have happened is that there was a decimal point error, and the actual homicide rate is 0.9/100K.

Of course, there's no shame in making a mistake. But the question is, how can anyone who claims to be any kind of expert in crime possibly let this kind of error slip by. I'm a total amateur, and when I first saw it, it jumped out, because 9 is astronomical. No wealthy democracy has a homicide rate even close to this except for the gun-soaked USA. So either this had to be a typo or an anomalous event like a mass shooting. Honestly, I'd be a bit embarrassed if I made a DU post that was this far off the mark, not to mention an academic paper with my name on it.

It's kinda funny thinking about how excited Kates and Mauser must have been when they thought this statistic was real (I assume that by now someone has pointed it out to them). Finally a genuine wealthy democracy with low gun ownership and an astronomical homicide rate to compare to the USA. Jackpot! Free at last from the embarrassment of having to draw misleading comparisons with places like Russia or Mexico! But it was not to be...

Anyway, obviously, after seeing this, I'm sure the supposedly skeptical pro-gunners will think twice next time they regurgitate some Kates or Mauser talking points, now that they realize that these two supposed experts are so unfamiliar with crime statistics that not only did this preposterous number slip by, they actually highlighted it in a paper of theirs. After all, as we have seen in this thread, the gunner skepticism is so strong that some stand ready to question basic laws of arithmetic if that's what it takes to "debunk" research linking guns to crime. There's no chance anyone so skeptical would take Kates or Mauser seriously. Right?

[iverglas]

273. are you me???!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=150671&mesg_id=151029

referring to my earlier post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=146559&mesg_id=147384

iverglas

Sun Aug-05-07 07:08 PM

Response to Reply #86

91. Well if it isn't the lying Kates and Mauser themselves

They give a homicide rate of 9.01/100,000 for Luxembourg for 2002. Funny how they picked that year.

Re the homicide rates there, they state:

The homicide rate data comes from an annually published report, CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT, for the years 2001–2004. Each year’s report gives homicide statistics for a dozen or so foreign nations in a section labeled “Homicide Rates for Selected Countries.” This section of the reports gives no explanation of why it selects the various nations whose homicide statistics it covers. Also without explanation, the nations covered differ from year to year. Thus, for instance, murder statistics for Germany and Hungary are given in all four of the pamphlets (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), for Russia in three years (2001, 2002, and 2004), for France in two years (2001 and 2003), and for Norway and Sweden in only one year (2001).

Well fucking duh, Don and Gary. The list is obviously in descending order by homicide rate -- from highest to lowest. The country rankings vary from year to year.

Luxembourg just happened to make it into the 2002 edition.
http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0080385-002-XIE.pdf

(note that the Canadian publication was not attempting to use the data to make any point, at least as I recall; I can't get it to load just now)

Now, let's compare that "9.01/100,000" to the figure I offered in my earlier post for 2002, taken from wiki's list: 0.90/100,000.

Hmm. Is anyone suspecting a MISPLACED DECIMAL in the Canadian publication? Does no one think it is just beyond bizarre that in a country with a population somewhere under 450,000 there would have been 40 or more homicides? I know, someone in the US might not think so; but really, do the math for NYC, say. Even the much reviled Washington DC has only hit 9/100,000 once in recorded history.

If that little datum were true, nearly one out of every 10,000 people in Luxembourg was murdered in 2002. Does ANYONE believe that? I dunno ... there may have been some sort of epidemic of murder in Luxembourg that year, or a couple of mass murders ... but nobody really seems to have noticed, if so.

Do we really believe that Kates and Mauser, highly educated and knowledgable fellows that they are, believed that statistic for an instant?

Would anyone else with a shred of intelligence or integrity believe it?

Now stop this. Kates is a liberal, you know he is.


edit - the table in question is on page 3 of the pdf document linked to in my post quoted above, so you can hold onto that as the source of the typo if you like.

Country -- Homicide rate per 100,000
Russia 20.54
Luxembourg 9.01
United States 5.52
Portugal 2.57
England & Wales 2.01
Denmark 1.99
Hungary 1.99
France 1.88
Canada 1.85
Australia 1.85
Tunisia 1.20
Switzerland 1.18
Germany 1.11
Austria 0.80
Source: National Central Bureau - Interpol Ottawa.

[DanTex]

277. Nice! Actually I'm Mary Rosh...

The thing is that, even without the error, based on the absurd methodology (if we can even call it a "methodology"), it's obvious that this is a case of starting with a conclusion and then cherry-picking data that fits. But, the question is, when they found out the data was bad, did they simply find some different way to cherry-pick the data, or did they actually change their conclusions to reflect the correct data.

Well, obviously they didn't change their conclusions, because this was never about rigorous statistical analysis. But what's funny is that it looks like at least Mauser was too lazy to even find new data to cherry-pick.

Here's a little write-up by Mauser in October 2007 with basically the same stuff, but he seems to have figured out that the data problem by then:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/international-evidence-on-gun-bans-and-murder-rates.pdf
Notice that he corrected the Luxembourg number in the big list in table 1. But then, in table 2, where he highlights the difference between Luxembourg (banned) and Belgium, France, and Germany (allowed), he's still got the 9.01. I guess that it wouldn't look too good if you listed the actual homicide rate of 0.9, given that it was lower than all three of Belgium, France, and Germany. I mean you wouldn't want to let the data speak for itself if what it says is the exact opposite of the story you are trying to peddle.

And mind you, this isn't propaganda from the NRA or any other lobby group. This is meant to be a research report by a supposed expert in the field. LOL.

[iverglas]

278. you didn't click my first link ;)

In that post, where I quoted the one I quoted above, I said:

Lookie here:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.web/product_files/Oct07ff.pdf <link now dead?>

Ah, yes, the Fraser Institute ...

Mauser himself uses both the 0.90 and the 9.01 figure for Luxembourg in a completely different paper (page 24). That one's quite amazing. He apparently cites the Cdn document in which the typo appeared, and yet uses the correct figure for Luxembourg -- 0.90 -- in the table, which is otherwise identical (with the addition of the years) to the one in the Kates/Mauser paper. And yet right next to it he uses the 9.01 figure for Luxembourg to compare Luxembourg to other countries.

Compare and contrast, per you:

Here's a little write-up by Mauser in October 2007 with basically the same stuff, but he seems to have figured out that the data problem by then:
http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/...
Notice that he corrected the Luxembourg number in the big list in table 1. But then, in table 2, where he highlights the difference between Luxembourg (banned) and Belgium, France, and Germany (allowed), he's still got the 9.01. I guess that it wouldn't look too good if you listed the actual homicide rate of 0.9, given that it was lower than all three of Belgium, France, and Germany. I mean you wouldn't want to let the data speak for itself if what it says is the exact opposite of the story you are trying to peddle.

Scary ...

Watch out, or we'll be getting people chanting about DanTex and iverglas sitting in a tree.

Or allegations of sock puppetry or something. Such things amuse the locals.

I did get a proposal of marriage here about 3 years back. From an actual CCW type, if you can imagine (saw the thing with my own eyes). All I ended up shooting was some BBs in an amusement park ... and I won.

[DanTex]

279. LOL. Looks like I am completely incapable of bringing anything original to the conversation...

[iverglas]

281. if so

you are not unique. ;)

[gejohnston]

274. more anti hypocrisy

One of the gun militants' favourite "scientists" when it comes to mounting their case is a guy called Gary Mauser ... a professor emeritus of business at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

His total lack of academic credentials in the field he has chosen to spout off in doesn't ever seem to bother anybody.

Yes he is a business professor.

Now for a couple of your favorites

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/david-hemenway/
http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/
http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/ianayres.htm

What makes economists more qualified? Their gun research are funded by the same foundations that fund the gun control groups. Conflict of interest? Yeah I know, I will be attacked for being anti science for questioning the qualifications of these guys. Of course the detractors will do exactly that to criminologists that does not play the game, and they will use creation science logic to do it. But so fucking what.

Oh here is a real criminologist
http://criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
No grants from NRA or any other conflict of interest.

[friendly_iconoclast]

276. Let's not forget Garen Wintemute, professor of emergency medicine

Not criminolgy- but his pronouncements about criminology are widely cited.

His total lack of academic credentials in the field he has chosen to spout off in doesn't ever seem to bother anybody.

Sauce for goose, meet gander....

[iverglas]

282. no lengths you won't go to, are there?

He's actually a professor of epidemiology and an emergency room physician at the University of California, Davis, and Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program.

Your own notion, presumably derived from somewhere in the 18th century, that epidemiology is not relevant to the study of the harms associated with firearms is, well, not particularly useful to anyone.

[TPaine7]

289. An emergency room physician is as trustworthy to evaluate the

relative merits of gun use for and against crime as a homicide detective is to evaluate the relative merits and costs of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Their biases are strong, well entrenched and honest. I don't begrudge them their biases, I begrudge them trying to bring them to bear to limit the freedom of innocent people.

I wouldn't trust MYSELF to analytically and accurately evaluate the relative merits and costs to the Southern economy of slavery. As a black man (and a decent human being) I would have a hard time seeing the positives--though I am intellectually sure that there must have been some from a strictly financial perspective. You would have to disguise the data to get a decent analysis. Ditto for the merits of genocide to X, regardless of what X is.

Some doctors see guns similarly to the way I see slavery or genocide. As I said, I don't begrudge them their bias, just what they attempt to do with it.

[iverglas]

292. you don't actually know what epidemiology is, do you?

"The behaviour of micro-organisms". Snork.

Wiki is always a good place for grasshoppers to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology (with my emphasis)

Epidemiology is the study of health-event, health-characteristic, or health-determinant patterns in a society. It is the cornerstone method of public health research, and helps inform policy decisions and evidence-based medicine by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive medicine. Epidemiologists are involved in the design of studies, collection and statistical analysis of data, and interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review). Major areas of epidemiologic work include outbreak investigation, disease surveillance and screening (medicine), biomonitoring, and comparisons of treatment effects such as in clinical trials. Epidemiologists rely on a number of other scientific disciplines such as biology (to better understand disease processes), biostatistics (to make efficient use of the data and draw appropriate conclusions), and exposure assessment and social science disciplines (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors, and their measurement).

If, that is, you are prepared to acknowledge that by persisting in referring to the individual in question, who is a professor of epidemiology, as an "emergency room physician" you are being, hm, not intellectually honest.

[TPaine7]

303. iverglas, iverglas. You are so confused.

What epidemiology is has nothing to do with the point you imagine yourself to be addressing.

Here is my post in its entirety:

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep-14-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #282
289. An emergency room physician is as trustworthy to evaluate the

relative merits of gun use for and against crime as a homicide detective is to evaluate the relative merits and costs of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Their biases are strong, well entrenched and honest. I don't begrudge them their biases, I begrudge them trying to bring them to bear to limit the freedom of innocent people.

I wouldn't trust MYSELF to analytically and accurately evaluate the relative merits and costs to the Southern economy of slavery. As a black man (and a decent human being) I would have a hard time seeing the positives--though I am intellectually sure that there must have been some from a strictly financial perspective. You would have to disguise the data to get a decent analysis. Ditto for the merits of genocide to X, regardless of what X is.

Some doctors see guns similarly to the way I see slavery or genocide. As I said, I don't begrudge them their bias, just what they attempt to do with it.
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

Let's see if I can break this down far enough for you. My point was that being an emergency room surgeon gave him a strong bias on guns. My point had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with his also being a professor of epidemiology or a poet or a snowboarder or a hockey player. Anything else that he also is is irrelevant to my point.

Will the Field allow you to see that?

If, that is, you are prepared to acknowledge that by persisting in referring to the individual in question, who is a professor of epidemiology, as an "emergency room physician" you are being, hm, not intellectually honest.

Let's see if we can figure out where I got the "hm, not intellectually honest" idea the he was an "emergency room physician."

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Sep-14-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #276
282. no lengths you won't go to, are there?

He's actually a professor of epidemiology and an emergency room physician at the University of California, Davis, and Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program.

Your own notion, presumably derived from somewhere in the 18th century, that epidemiology is not relevant to the study of the harms associated with firearms is, well, not particularly useful to anyone.

Try harder, iverglas. Even clowns, court jesters and the like need a residual bit of logic and realism in their work. This blaming me for accepting your word routine is verrrrrry boring and depressing. It's not working for you this time.

Give up.

[iverglas]

280. what makes economists more qualified than business professors?

Well, I think in this case the question answers itself. :eyes:

Their gun research are funded by the same foundations that fund the gun control groups.

And Gary Mauser is funded by THE FRASER INSTITUTE. Good god.

Kleck is the David J. Bordua professor of criminology.

Here's where we find Bordua:

http://old.i2i.org/main/author.php?author_id=279&cycle=2011-10

That's THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE. (Same place you find old Dave Kopel.) Latest publications of which include:

» How Democrats Killed Medical Privacy in Colorado
- If I missed a single progressive voice against HB 1330, I'd love to know about it.
(one of the outfit's little projects is http://www.patientpowernow.org: "Let’s Model ObamaJobs After ObamaCare!")

» Does Memorial Day Matter?
- Memorial Day matters because America matters. America matters because freedom matters.

(talk about yer overblown self-image and conceit on that last one ...)


Can't win for losing, can you?

I mean, I wouldn't want to suggest there's a vast right-wing conspiracy at work or anything, but when you look around you ...

[gejohnston]

283. not exactly

You love that genetic fallacy don't you? You got that guilt by association thing going quite well too. Even then, what evidence do you have that Kleck, Kates, or Bordua are right wing?

First, both of the major gun control groups in the US are ran by right wingers.

You mean this guy?
http://socialsciences.academickeys.com/whoswho.php?dothis=display&folk%5BIDX%5D=148072
Wow, another real sociologist.

So FSU named something after the guy. So fucking what? What does that have to do with Kleck? How does it affect Kleck's research? He doesn't even like guns.
Neither Kleck nor Kates could be described as gun militants, since they bad mouth the NRA as much of the time and support regulations the NRA certainly do not. For example, Kleck supports requiring all private sales be brokered by FFLs. Link? He told himself. Some of us here have said basically the same thing.
So your claim that they are "gun militants" is pure nonsense. It still does not change the fact that Kleck is a respected criminologist.
As far as Kates being a libertarian, he is not a right wing libertarian. He is best described (and basically describes himself) as a left wing libertarian. He is a lawyer and criminologist, in the same way Phil Cook is an economist and criminologist.
Something else you may not know about Kates:

During the Civil rights movement, he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler. Thereafter, he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure at Saint Louis University School of Law, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law, teaches, and writes on criminology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates
Yeah, put that on resume to AEI, and see how quick you get hired. Not.

To quote Kates:

Rejection of specious or unproven anti-gun views does not entail accepting equally specious or unproven pro-gun propaganda. By the same token, realistically acknowledging that gun laws cannot overcome basic socio-economic and cultural causes of violence does not at all justify the gun lobby's myopic rejection of the very concept of control. Rather, recognizing the inherent limitations of control means freeing it from unrealistic expectations of what it can actually accomplish. Such realism precludes only counter- productively utopian legislation: gun laws whose potential enforcement and other costs are likely to exceed their probable benefits. By rejecting such laws we deprive the gun lobby of a major propaganda device: crowing over the failure of gun control to accomplish the miracles its incautious advocates so rashly promise. One of the most the scrupulous and sophisticated of academic gun control advocates puts the issues in perspective:

...handgun control advocates have often given a greatly exaggerated picture of what might be accomplished through gun control. Feasible control programs might be capable of reducing the overall amount of violent crime by a few percentage points, and, if so, these programs may be worthwhile. But handgun control by itself will not make the streets safe.
... the "ideal" gun control program one that does not pose serious barriers to the possession of handguns for legitimate purposes, but does effectively inhibit the use of handguns in crime by a method which has low cost to the criminal justice system and to the society at large.{17}
In this connection it is crucial to disavow a myth that has been perpetrated by both pro- and anti-gun extremists: that what "control" really means is reducing -- eventually banning -- guns to all but the military and the police. Of course the myth is true insofar as its represents the goal of anti-gun crusaders who deny that gun owners have any legitimate interests.{18} But that is not what "control" means, either literally or to the majority of Americans who support it (a majority that includes, surveys show, most gun owners). The literal meaning of "control" is regulation, not prohibition. Likewise, what "control" means to most Americans is reasonable compromise to accommodate both the legitimate interests of responsible gun owners and the clear social need for rational control over a deadly instrumentality.{19} Regrettably, the trust that is essential for compromise and accommodation has been destroyed by the rancorous vituperation that has characterized the debate over gun control.

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html
Yeah, that sounds pretty militant. I can see him giving that speech at the next NRA convention just before getting free tickets to the next Ted Nugent concert.

That said, you are saying that science is ideological rather than empirical. To say Kleck or anyone else is a "right wing gun militant" simply because you do not like his result, is hardly winning. It is fucking absurd.

Of course, you did not touch your boys being paid to play, or that Hemenway's co researcher is an employee of VPC. Hemenway is an ideologue. I read his books, which reads like the press releases. Of course, the press releases and conclusions do not match the data in the study. Of course, the Joyce Foundation paymasters only read the parts you do.

Kleck's books on the other hand, are very scholarly. I have found some obvious mistakes in Kate's other than decimal point moving. (although he has habit of putting long explanatory footnotes.) Both are critical of the NRA.

So, where is this right-wing conspiracy? All of these guys are way to the left of Paul Helmke, his likely replacement, and certainly supply side economics believing James and Sara Brady.
To answer your question, the only Mauser I ever mentioned is the Hsc I bought a couple of spare magazines for, from a Canadian supplier. I treat Lott the same way I do Hemenway, unless you can prove otherwise.

[iverglas]

284. Kleck and Bordua collaborate

You can find stuff when you google if you actually look. It's this easy:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=640&q=bordua+kleck+&btnG=Search

Bordua's bias is so huge it is beyond elephant in the room.

As far as Kates being a libertarian, he is not a right wing libertarian. He is best described (and basically describes himself) as a left wing libertarian.

You may have gathered that I don't really give a crap how anyone describes themself, and I have no evidence of Kates being a left-wing anything.

"Civil libertarian" is NOT equal to liberal or progressive or any of that jazz. Not necessarily mutually exclusive, but not equal. What it is often equal to is careerist, in my own experience.

These people are all one-trick ponies giving themselves fancy monikers.

You link me to that piece of rubbish where Kates blithers on about "bigotry" against gun owners, and you expect me to take seriously any assertion that he and I fall in the same quadrant of the political spectrum? He is disgusting, plain and simple. Give it up. Please. Just. Give. It. Up.


Of course, you did not touch your boys being paid to play, or that Hemenway's co researcher is an employee of VPC.

When will you get it? I DO NOT CARE. I think it is wonderful that there is money available to fund research of this sort. It goes some slight way to countering the flood of total garbage FUNDED BY THE RIGHT WING. Garbage like Mauser churns out for the Fraser Institute. (Looked that one up yet? Hint: It is not remotely connected with his former academic institution, Simon Fraser University. Sad to see that SFU has lost its way; in my day, I don't think anybody at SFU even knew there was an obscure "executive MBA" mill hidden away in its bowels, and Mauser would have been run out of town. Students cared about their schools back then ...)

Mauser is heavily invested in gun militancy:

http://www.garymauser.net/papers.html

I am Gary Mauser, Professor Emeritus, of Simon Fraser University in Canada. I represent the National Firearms Association.

He is deeply entwined with the present right-wing federal government / Conservative Party.

He has NO credibility. None. And if you're actually saying you don't know who he is ...

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=640&q=mauser+kates&btnG=Search

He is Kates' collaborator, ffs. That sure says great things about Kates.


All of these guys are way to the left of Paul Helmke, his likely replacement, and certainly supply side economics believing James and Sara Brady.

For fuck's sake, Sarah Brady is not her husband. Talk about yer generic fallacy. Where are Sarah Brady's writings on economics? And I imagine James Brady was a raving leftist compared to most Democrats these days; his actual functions had nothing to do with economics either, of course.

Helmke? Any specifics? I see he once ran against Evan Bayh. Are there points of differentiation there? Snork.

Is there some reason that a non-partisan public policy institute would not include Republicans in its officers? More specifically, is there a single thing about the Brady Campaign that you can point to, to substantiate allegations that it is right-wing?

Other than some ridiculous claim that gun control advocacy is right-wing. That's not what I have to grasp at when it comes to, oh, the Fraser Institute. It's right-wing through and through to the core about everything, and dishonest as it needs to be to advance its agenda.


In any event, no, you have offered nothing to support your claims about "these guys". The odd one may have had progressive leanings a long time ago, but what they are now is careerists who have used the cosmetics of "civil liberties" to gild their appalling lack of academic honesty and rigour and incestuous relationships with the right wing.

[gejohnston]

286. so show me

evidence of dishonesty on any of their part? I noticed that you said zip about the Joyce Foundation echo chamber's crew appalling lack of academic honesty and rigour and incestuous relationships. Which every gun control study from your side I have found yet is shill and very incestuous because they come from the same few people who cite each other and are funded by the same place.

What does one's politics have to do with the quality of their work? You attack what you think their politics might be but you never managed to say anything of substance about their work. I don't know what Hemenway's politics is. Nor do I know how any of those other people vote. I really don't give a shit because it is not relevant. You have not provided any evidence other than guilt by association.

[iverglas]

285. just to elaborate on one specific point here

So, where is this right-wing conspiracy? All of these guys are way to the left of Paul Helmke, his likely replacement, and certainly supply side economics believing James and Sara Brady.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x99520

iverglas
Mon Feb-14-05 12:36 PM
Response to Original message

13. gee, there's just nothing like a little information

And then there's the whole story.

<I am editing this because I had apparently confused two Sarah Bradys>

Brady, Sarah K
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence
CASTLE, MICHAEL N (R)
House (DE 01)
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND $250
primary 06/26/04

Brady, Sarah K.
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Brady Campaign to Reduce Gun Violence
CASTLE, MICHAEL N (R)
House (DE 01)
CASTLE CAMPAIGN FUND $250
primary 08/30/03

BRADY, SARAH K
DEWEY BEACH, DE 19971
ADVOCATE
BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR (D)
Senate - DC
CITIZENS FOR BIDEN $400
primary 04/29/02

BRADY, SARAH K
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
HANDGUN CONTROL INC
KENNEDY, EDWARD MOORE SENATOR (D)
Senate - DC
KENNEDY FOR SENATE (1994)
$250
general 11/16/95

... Of course, there's still the whole question of who the one Republican in question was:
http://www.issues2000.org/House/Michael_Castle_Gun_Control.htm

Tsk. Rated "F" by the NRA.

Let me just update that.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?st=DE&last=brady&first=sarah

In addition to her continuing contributions to Michael Castle
http://www.issues2000.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm
(he's an odd duck based on his record, but ah, single-issue, you know), we have:

Brady, Sarah
Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
Brady Center To Prevent/Chairman
CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
President
HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT $250
primary 10/26/07

There is not one single bit of evidence that she has been associated with the Republican Party in decades, in addition.

[gejohnston]

287. So?

Want to see the list of Dems the NRA supports? I am guessing Brady is a single issue funder like the NRA. The difference is one has a lot of grass roots support. The other does not. One has crazy stupid propaganda and the other has crazy assholes in the board of directors.

[TPaine7]

288. Hmmmm,

For example, think about the big influential study on the pro-gun side, which is a telephone survey asking people whether they used a gun defensively. What, exactly, makes a sociologist so much better at conducting phone surveys than economists or epidemiologists? In this case, if anything, the epidemiologists would be in a better position, because Kleck's primary flaw is something that epidemiologists would be familiar with: if you try and measure something very rare like DGU, your results are extremely sensitive to false positives. To take an extreme example, if we did a similar phone survey to estimate how many people contacted aliens in the last year, we would likely come up with a similar estimate of around 1% or 2.5M, just like DGU (and maybe even more), because, a small but positive percentage of survey respondents will say yes to anything. If you are measuring something where the true rate is closer to 50%, then you don't get this same problem, but when you are dealing with percentages near either 0% or 100%, things work out differently.

1. As I recall, Kleck is a criminologist. His specialty is studying human behavior, not the behavior of microorganisms.
   
   
2. Kleck's alleged blind spot is no secret. I am far from an expert in statistics, but we covered false positives in my class. You actually sound like someone who hasn't read Kleck's study. He devised a gauntlet of up to nineteen questions that respondents had to answer consistently. On the spur of the moment. And then answer again when a supervisor called back. Consistently with the first interview. I agree that there are many people who would like to take credit for fake DGUs. Some of those people are willing to make up lies to do so. I don't think that many of them are CAPABLE of successfully defeating a cross examination on the spur of the moment regarding a fiction that they invented on the same spur of the moment and doing it again consistently later. The fact that neither you or Hemmenway (if memory serves) actually addressed the countermeasures is telling. The fact that you blithely imply that Kleck's "flaw" was due to his being ignorant of something that an epidemiologist would be familiar with is telling. The fact that while anyone who is familiar with Kleck's survey knows that he took elaborate countermeasures and you act like he had less awareness than I do after a single class is telling.
   
   
3. "{I}f you try and measure something very rare like DGU"--yes I'm familiar with that line of reasoning. a) DGUs are very rare. b)Therefore, if a survey--even one with elaborate and nuanced countermeasures to false positives--says that DGUs aren't as rare as we KNOW that they are, that survey must be flawed. Due to false positives. c) So any surveys that replicate the results are also flawed, even if performed by "those of us who are on the right side" d) So some researchers conclude that ALL surveys are false--even theirs if they yield the wrong results. e) The solution is to reject all surveys out of hand and to maintain that surveys are an illegitimate method IN PRINCIPLE to examine DGUs f) Having rejected all contrary evidence, and accepting only supporting evidence, we arrive at the conclusion that DGUs are very rare--which, incidentally, was the premise. Remember my point about whether it is scientifically valid to start your investigation KNOWING the answer?
   

And even if you disagree about the merits of this study, it's difficult to argue that a sociology background makes you better equipped to analyze this kind of data than economics or epidemiology. After all, what is really required is knowledge of statistics, specific knowledge about phone surveys, knowledge of other data that can be used for external validation, knowledge of study protocols, etc. The point is, for research like this, what it says on your PhD is less important than whether you are a competent scientist with the right kind of technical knowledge.

I think you overestimate the importance of statistical methodology because it's your thing. It is a link in the chain, but only one link. As I recall--and I am too pressed for time to quote it--the study you cited counted guns in NEARBY CARS as being accessible. To me that makes no sense. A person accosted by a knife wielding or gun wielding assailant or outnumbered would not be emboldened by a gun in a NEARBY CAR. If a person can access a gun in a car, they can get in that car. If they can get to and in the car with enough spare time to bring a gun to bear, they can escape or bring to bear a weapon much more formidable than a pistol as the case requires. (And yes, I am aware that they only said explicitly that they counted guns in nearby cars for the controls--the people who didn't get shot. So they weren't cheating. They were either hurting their own side or being evenhandedly flawed. IMO). As I see it, to folks whose strong points are studying germs and doing math, these things might not be so obvious. For guys who study CRIMINALS and their interactions with victims, such details would be very clear.

As far as human nature and bias and all that, yes there is bias. And you left out maybe the biggest source of bias in academic research, which is careerism. Academics don't care about gun politics nearly as much as they care about their own careers and fame. That's why, once someone has a reputation and a staked-out position, future research by that person is very likely to come out on the same side as the earlier stuff. If you think that someone like Kleck's motivation to defend his turf is any weaker than someone like Hemenway's, you are kidding yourself. It doesn't mean the research is all garbage, they still have to do quality work and get it through the referees into the journals.

I didn't leave out careerism. I was talking about it the whole time. Going with the crowd is safe. Designing studies to get results the Joyce Foundation wants to see is safe. All you have to do to see why people who get funding from the Joyce Foundation always favor gun control is to ask yourself what would happen if they didn't. They don't need to fudge the math, necessarily. They don't have to overtly violate ethical standards. But if someone clever in statistics wants to use studies to get funding, they probably can figure out ways to work the system to keep that paycheck coming.

I don't doubt that Kleck has motivation to defend his turf. He's human. One thing that impresses me about Kleck is that he entered the field with an anti-gun bias and had his views corrected by what he discovered. He thought he was going to finally prove what everyone already knew intuitively--that guns are a net negative to society (except in the hands of government and security). Kleck's research--of which the survey is just a little part--corrected his views.

My research--though I am but a simple layman--corrected my views, too. I have a special respect for people whose views have been and can be changed by evidence.

But it does mean that you look to the science itself, rather than toss out a big chunk of it because of some guy at the CDC or the fact that a PhD says epidemiology rather than sociology.

I look to the science as far as I can. I am not a statistician, so I tend to look to logic and search out inconsistencies and holes in thinking. That's how I turned against my former anti-rights views. As I recall it, Hemenway's circular reasoning, evasion of countermeasures against false positives (countermeasures that won the reluctant praise of a rabidly anti-rights legend of criminology) and his implication that DGUs belong in the realm of fantasy did not impress me.

As to epidemiology vs criminology--I have already addressed that issue. It seems to me that guys who study criminals and their interactions with victims will see and account for things that people who study viruses and bacteria and their interactions with human tissue will miss.

One branch of science that you might find interesting is the study of how financing affects scientific studies. I am sure I have read about such studies, though I haven't read the studies myself. It seems so obvious to me that I can hardly imagine that it wouldn't be so. So yes, I would throw out ALL research funded by the Joyce Foundation and by the NRA on gun issues. I would throw out ALL research by Phillip Morris on tobacco. I would look with a very jaundiced eye at research on a product funded by its producer or industry organization.

And I would be every bit as skeptical of detectives who wanted to affect the understanding of personal security and reasonable searches and seizures as I am of doctors who want to affect the right to keep and bear arms. To a person who studies tissue damage, guns and bullets are the enemy. To a person trying to catch murderers, privacy is the enemy--or at least an irritating impediment to catching bad guys. Competence isn't the only issue; motivations are crucial.

My objections don't hang on any one of these points, but I think that the combination is devastating. If you, the organization that funds you, your professional associates and the people who will review your work all share the same motivations, biases, beliefs and incentives the result is predictable. I don't need a PhD, a profound understanding of statistics, a deep knowledge of the scientific method or even the technical knowledge of a twenty-first century teenager to see that. I could pull any thinking adult out of ancient Egypt or Rome and they would give you the same answer. The fact that "your"--the hypothetical "your"--core competency is using math to study germs and the like while your "opponents" competency is studying criminals and their interactions with others using math as a tool is just icing on the cake.

[DanTex]

293. Kleck, again...

Statistics is not "my thing", despite your attempt to pigeonhole me. But I do understand statistics, and I do have a scientific background, so I can read this stuff and separate the wheat from the chaff. The usual accusation that I'm placing too much weight on the technical matters reflects the your preference for softer and more subjective territory where you can peddle your theories of bias or conspiracy or whatever without running into any hard data.

Regarding your points on Kleck's study. First off, by any measure DGUs are very rare. Contrary to your insinuation, this is not part of some circular logic of mine, it is something everyone agrees on: even if we accept Kleck's DGU numbers, we still only get a rate of 1%. The question is whether the annual DGU rate per person is 1% like Kleck says or 0.05% like NCVS says. Also, the reason it is significant that DGUs are rare has nothing to do with whatever all-caps fallacy you claimed to have caught me in. It is because when you get down in the range of 1% or lower, you face a different set of statistical issues than you would face if you were measuring something in the more normal range of 10%-90%. And my point is that Kleck fails to adequately account for this fact, and if you had read my post honestly and tried to understand what I was saying, rather than take the "very rare" out of context to score some cheap points, I wouldn't have to explain this...

Then you imply that I claimed that Kleck didn't know about false positives, and how "telling" it was that I would "blithely imply" that he didn't know something you learned in your intro stats class and so I must have not read Kleck's paper at all and blah blah blah... Please. Can we be serious? I was under the impression you wanted to have a real discussion and maybe learn something. Obviously, I didn't suggest Kleck didn't know that there was such a thing as false positives. What happens is that when the positive response rate is near 1%, a survey like this becomes extremely sensitive to false positives, and it is this heightened sensitivity that is the biggest weakness in Kleck's methodology, and it is also something he did not take into account. And by the way, again the sensitivity to FPs is a technical thing: for example, if the true positive rate is 1%, this survey would be 99X as sensitive to the false positive rate as it is to the false negative rate, since there are so many true negatives that a small change in the false positive rate results in a relatively large change in the overall number of positive responses.

In any case, if you disagree with me, and you do think Kleck took this FP sensitivity into account, and actually gave any kind of quantifiable evidence that the FP rate was well below 1% , which it would have had to have been if his estimate is accurate. And I mean evidence, not empty assertions about how they had "up to 19 questions, etc." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an FP rate this low is certainly an extraordinary claim. Here's the paper, you go ahead and find me the evidence that he was even aware of this FP sensitivity issue, much less that he was able to demonstrate that he had it controlled:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

You also seem to really like the germ story despite the fact that I pointed out the Pub Health people often study injuries and safety, and that a lot of the research is statistical in nature anyway. I guess that, since we actually are talking about safety in a lot of cases, it's easier just to ignore that inconvenient fact and stick with the germs. As to your example that they shouldn't have coded people with nearby guns as carrying, this is truly laughable and a tiny technical point. You understand that they say "quickly available", not in a car halfway down the block. On top of that, what you miss is the fact that by erring on the side of coding more controls rather than less as carrying, that actually weakens the ultimate result of the study, so this is an example of erring on the side of caution, to make sure that they didn't miss any controls who might have had access to a gun.

Compare that the the flaw in the Kleck study, which is not some minor nitpick but a serious methodological oversight regarding FP. As is your tendency, you took me out of context and suggested that I was implying Kleck knew less statistics than you. But now that you know better, and given that this DGU issue is a pretty big point of contention, I'll ask you again and maybe get an answer this time. What is it about a sociologists background gives an upper hand over economists or epidemiologists in analyzing this kind of phone survey correctly? And if the answer is "nothing", which it is, then the next question is, given the statistical nature of the field, might it not be wise to reconsider your stubborn insistence on judging research by the field listed on the PhD rather than the content? Because this is a real meaty issue. The coding of guns in nearby cars is a tiny speck, which actually they probably handled correctly.

I appreciate your wanting to be scientifically informed without getting too deep, but, though not all science is statistical, the science of gun violence is, as much as you would like to think that you can simply intuit your way to the truth without looking at any hard data or facts on the ground. Because, you really ought to watch out for this tendency to think that you, despite not really understanding what is going on, have found neat little logical inconsistencies in the thinking of large numbers of scientists who do understand the science down to the nitty gritty. This almost never happens, except in bumblebee lala-land.

It's funny that you say you "weren't impressed" by Hemenway's take on the false positives, two sentences after you concede that you aren't actually able to fully understand the science. It's a debate about a technical scientific point that you don't understand, and you even know that you don't understand it. What do you expect to be impressed about, word choice? Font selection? As I pointed out above, the "circular logic" you think you found was actually a concrete technical flaw regarding FP sensitivity. Yes, superficially it sounds like he's use the fact that DGUs are rare to prove that DGUs are rare. But this is sophomoric nonsense, which quickly becomes apparent if you scratch the surface even slightly.

And then there's the fact that, while you don't want to get too close to the actual science, you also don't trust the scientific consensus. The researchers from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, JHopkins, UCDavis, UPenn, UChicago, Duke, etc., that stuff you mostly toss out. On the other hand, the stuff coming from the criminology department at FSU and the "Independence Institute" you think is golden. I'm sure you've got some way of justifying it all to yourself, but I must say you do seem to have yourself fenced off pretty well from reality. If I point out that you are ignoring the bulk of the mainstream research, you can insist this is an appeal to authority, and then retreat into talk of germs, the Joyce Foundation, bumblebees. If I point out specific technical flaws, you say that I'm putting too much emphasis on the statistics, and you start looking for ways to misleadingly quote either me or Hemenway or whoever to try and find a superficial logical inconsistency. Wouldn't it be easier to just look directly at the actual science, with a fair and open mind, and figure out what's going on?

[TPaine7]

302. Hmmmm...

I am going to do my best to be civil, since I really am here to learn--and I still hold out the hope that you may have something to teach. But in order for me to learn, I must actually probe what you are saying. If I "learn" that I should accept what you say because you understand statistics and science and your views are shared by very smart people from Harvard and Yale and MIT and Brown and the like, I will be none the wiser.

If, after accepting your views, I was faced with someone asking the questions I am asking now, and if I had no answer but that a guy on the internet said so (and that some smart guys from Harvard, Yale... believed it too), I would not be able to respect myself.

293. Kleck, again...

It seems only fair to point out why I am talking about Kleck. You brought Kleck up and suggested that I consider his study (post 262):

For example, think about the big influential study on the pro-gun side, which is a telephone survey asking people whether they used a gun defensively. What, exactly, makes a sociologist so much better at conducting phone surveys than economists or epidemiologists? In this case, if anything, the epidemiologists would be in a better position, because Kleck's primary flaw is something that epidemiologists would be familiar with: if you try and measure something very rare like DGU, your results are extremely sensitive to false positives. To take an extreme example, if we did a similar phone survey to estimate how many people contacted aliens in the last year, we would likely come up with a similar estimate of around 1% or 2.5M, just like DGU (and maybe even more), because, a small but positive percentage of survey respondents will say yes to anything. If you are measuring something where the true rate is closer to 50%, then you don't get this same problem, but when you are dealing with percentages near either 0% or 100%, things work out differently.

Your irritation with the subject matter seems strange.

Statistics is not "my thing", despite your attempt to pigeonhole me. But I do understand statistics, and I do have a scientific background, so I can read this stuff and separate the wheat from the chaff. The usual accusation that I'm placing too much weight on the technical matters reflects the your preference for softer and more subjective territory where you can peddle your theories of bias or conspiracy or whatever without running into any hard data.

As stupid as it feels to type this I will type it anyway; it might facilitate communication. I have a technical background. I apply scientific and technical principles daily. I have patents for inventing technology. I am not afraid of science, technology or hard data.

Regarding your points on Kleck's study. First off, by any measure DGUs are very rare. Contrary to your insinuation, this is not part of some circular logic of mine, it is something everyone agrees on: even if we accept Kleck's DGU numbers, we still only get a rate of 1%....

Granted, DGUs are very rare if by very rare you mean "in the range of 1% or less" (accepting your numbers for the sake of discussion). But this is not what Hemenway is saying. He is saying that DGUs are very rare, and by "very rare" he means "so much lower than 1% that they invalidate Kleck's numbers and the corroborating evidence generated by over a dozen other studies." That application of the “rareness” argument is what makes Hemenway’s point circular.

...The question is whether the annual DGU rate per person is 1% like Kleck says or 0.05% like NCVS says.

Ok.

Also, the reason it is significant that DGUs are rare has nothing to do with whatever all-caps fallacy you claimed to have caught me in. It is because when you get down in the range of 1% or lower, you face a different set of statistical issues than you would face if you were measuring something in the more normal range of 10%-90%. And my point is that Kleck fails to adequately account for this fact, and if you had read my post honestly and tried to understand what I was saying, rather than take the "very rare" out of context to score some cheap points, I wouldn't have to explain this...

I don't see you explaining anything here. All I see is a restatement of your earlier point--the point you made in the second quote box in this post. I'll repeat the salient part:

...if you try and measure something very rare like DGU, your results are extremely sensitive to false positives.

I accepted that in post 288:

Kleck's alleged blind spot is no secret. I am far from an expert in statistics, but we covered false positives in my class.

The fact that if you try and measure something very rare, your results are extremely sensitive to false positives has been accepted and accounted for. Repeating that fact now is not explaining anything. I knew about the false positive problem before the class, it was explained clearly and demonstrated with numbers in class. But as technical matters go, it is a very simple thing, at least conceptually. This point—“if the true positive rate is 1%, this survey would be 99X as sensitive to the false positive rate as it is to the false negative rate”—is a demonstration of the simplicity. That is elementary or junior high math. It certainly bears no comparison to calculus, differential equations or linear algebra. And I have no idea of how you think I took anything out of context.

If you are making some deeper point, you are being too subtle. You don't have to get into the nitty gritty if you don’t have time, just point the way. Is there some specific methodology or principle, say Miller's technique or Thompson's theorem (made up names to illustrate how you could point me in the right direction) that is used in these cases? Just say so!

Then you imply that I claimed that Kleck didn't know about false positives, and how "telling" it was that I would "blithely imply" that he didn't know something you learned in your intro stats class and so I must have not read Kleck's paper at all and blah blah blah... Please. Can we be serious? I was under the impression you wanted to have a real discussion and maybe learn something. Obviously, I didn't suggest Kleck didn't know that there was such a thing as false positives. What happens is that when the positive response rate is near 1%, a survey like this becomes extremely sensitive to false positives, and it is this heightened sensitivity that is the biggest weakness in Kleck's methodology, and it is also something he did not take into account. And by the way, again the sensitivity to FPs is a technical thing: for example, if the true positive rate is 1%, this survey would be 99X as sensitive to the false positive rate as it is to the false negative rate, since there are so many true negatives that a small change in the false positive rate results in a relatively large change in the overall number of positive responses.

In any case, if you disagree with me, and you do think Kleck took this FP sensitivity into account, and actually gave any kind of quantifiable evidence that the FP rate was well below 1%, which it would have had to have been if his estimate is accurate. And I mean evidence, not empty assertions about how they had "up to 19 questions, etc." Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an FP rate this low is certainly an extraordinary claim. Here's the paper, you go ahead and find me the evidence that he was even aware of this FP sensitivity issue, much less that he was able to demonstrate that he had it controlled:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

With all due respect to the knowledge that I am still hoping you are able to impart, it still seems you are still implying that Kleck had no knowledge of false positives as well as saying that he did nothing to provide quantifiable evidence that it was accounted for.

The request for quantifiable evidence on the false positives is interesting. How would you, understanding statistics, show that the error rate was less than 1%? What would have been an acceptable approach that would have demonstrated the survey's validity?

You also seem to really like the germ story despite the fact that I pointed out the Pub Health people often study injuries and safety, and that a lot of the research is statistical in nature anyway. I guess that, since we actually are talking about safety in a lot of cases, it's easier just to ignore that inconvenient fact and stick with the germs. As to your example that they shouldn't have coded people with nearby guns as carrying, this is truly laughable and a tiny technical point. You understand that they say "quickly available", not in a car halfway down the block.

Neither the OP nor the study you cited are about injuries or safety, per se. They are not about gun accidents or wound analysis, for example. As to why I focus on epidemiology, read the list of credentials of the people responsible for the study you cited:

Charles C. Branas and Douglas J. Wiebe are with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia. Therese S. Richmond is with the Division of Biobehavioral and Health Sciences, Firearm and Injury Center at Penn, and University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Dennis P. Culhane is with the Cartographic Modeling Laboratory, University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice, Philadelphia. Thomas R. Ten Have is with the Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia.

Once again, I am following your lead—and getting blamed for it. Charles C. Branas, Douglas J. Wiebe and Thomas R. Ten have backgrounds in epidemiology. Therese S. Richmond has a background in nursing. Dennis P. Culhane has a background in cartography. I focused on epidemiology. I hardly see how focusing on nursing or cartography would have made a difference.

The epidemiologists’, nurse’s and mapmaker’s study apparently lacked someone with expertise in human criminal behavior and criminal-victim interaction.

On top of that, what you miss is the fact that by erring on the side of coding more controls rather than less as carrying, that actually weakens the ultimate result of the study, so this is an example of erring on the side of caution, to make sure that they didn't miss any controls who might have had access to a gun.

I missed no such thing. I saw that and its implications. Read my words again and think about them. I not only knew that this acted against their premise—I said so:

(And yes, I am aware that they only said explicitly that they counted guns in nearby cars for the controls--the people who didn't get shot. So they weren't cheating. They were either hurting their own side or being evenhandedly flawed. IMO).

What do those words mean if I didn’t understand? It seems only fair to point out that if you “read my post honestly and tried to understand what I was saying” I wouldn’t have had to repeat that.

If they were being cautious and conservative, I would expect them to say so. The fact that they didn’t say so strongly implies that they didn’t realize that if a gun in a car is accessible enough to matter then the car itself is accessible, and that the car being accessible is a really big deal. Not realizing that goes to competence.

Laughable and tiny as you think my point is, it has far reaching implications. Why should they be trusted to rate issues involving criminal-victims interactions given their frail grasp of such matters?:

Each case’s chance-to-resist status was assigned after being independently rated by 2 individuals (initial j=0.64 indicating substantial agreement34) who then reconciled differential ratings.

There is also their apparent belief that gun take-aways occur in statistically significant numbers:

Alternatively, an individual may bring a gun to an otherwise gun-free conflict only to have that gun wrested away and turned on them.

The nurse, cartographer and epidemiologists should have consulted a criminologist.

Compare that the the flaw in the Kleck study, which is not some minor nitpick but a serious methodological oversight regarding FP. As is your tendency, you took me out of context and suggested that I was implying Kleck knew less statistics than you. But now that you know better, and given that this DGU issue is a pretty big point of contention, I'll ask you again and maybe get an answer this time. What is it about a sociologists background gives an upper hand over economists or epidemiologists in analyzing this kind of phone survey correctly? And if the answer is "nothing", which it is, then the next question is, given the statistical nature of the field, might it not be wise to reconsider your stubborn insistence on judging research by the field listed on the PhD rather than the content? Because this is a real meaty issue. The coding of guns in nearby cars is a tiny speck, which actually they probably handled correctly.

It still appears that you are implying Kleck knew less about statistics than I do. I addressed that above. Maybe you are making some other subtle point, but it is unclear.

Kleck did address the issue with his questions and probably in other ways not mentioned in the report. Marvin Wolfgang (who I am sure saw the details that we don’t) was quite impressed:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people….

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. Maybe Franklin Zimring and Philip Cook can help me find fault with the Kleck and Gertz research, but for now, I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research….

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.

Source: Title: A tribute to a view I have opposed. (response to article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in this issue, p. 150)(Guns and Violence Symposium)
Author: Marvin E. Wolfgang
Publication: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Refereed)
Date: September 22, 1995
Publisher: Northwestern University, School of Law
Volume: 86 Issue: n1 Page: 188-192

This is the mea culpa of “the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world” according to the British Journal of Criminology. He is definitely making a confession against his position and interests. And it would be hard to characterize him as a so-called “gun militant.” What was his problem? Did he not understand statistics? Was this “pioneer of quantitative and theoretical criminology” incompetent? Did he miss something that is taught in introductory statistics classes, something as simple as false positives? Or was it the fact that he wasn’t at Harvard, Yale or one of the other approved schools? And why, if he was that incompetent, would a British criminology journal consider him, an American, more prominent than any British criminologist?

Then there was the survey expert Kleck hired to help his team get the technical issues right. Here’s the NY Times on him:

Dr. Sudman was an expert in survey sampling and the design of survey questionnaires. He wrote scores of articles on the subject, and was the author or co-author of nearly 20 books.

Some are classic textbooks for students and lay readers trying to grapple with statistics and survey writing. Among them are ''Applied Sampling'' (1976), ''Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design'' (1982) and ''Polls and Surveys'' (1988).
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/08/us/seymour-sudman-71-expert-in-survey-design.html

Yes, I know, he wasn’t at Harvard or Yale, he was a University of Illinois professor. But he wrote classic textbooks on survey design explaining, among other things, statistics in surveys. So this guy is less skilled in FPs than a professor of health policy?! Why, because the professor of health policy teaches at Harvard?

You keep talking about hard data and facts; Supposedly I’m afraid of them. So let’s look at some data and facts. I’ll use mostly your data and reasoning.

1) 1% or 2.5M is a result that can easily result from false positives—source: your post 262

2) highest annual estimate of criminal gun use = 847,652 as of time of Kleck’s study source: NCVS as cited by Kleck

3) if 2,500,000 = 1%

then

847,652 = .34%

That’s almost exactly 3 times as small. So let’s apply your (and Hemenway’s) logic:

What happens is that when the positive response rate is near {or lower than} 1%, a survey like this becomes extremely sensitive to false positives, and it is this heightened sensitivity that is the biggest weakness in {the NCVS} methodology, and it is also something {they} did not take into account. And by the way, again the sensitivity to FPs is a technical thing: for example, if the true positive rate is {.34}%, this survey would be {293}X as sensitive to the false positive rate as it is to the false negative rate, since there are so many true negatives that a small change in the false positive rate results in a relatively large change in the overall number of positive responses.

In any case, if you disagree with me, and you do think {the NCVS} took this FP sensitivity into account, and actually gave any kind of quantifiable evidence that the FP rate was well below {.34}%, which it would have had to have been if his estimate is accurate. And I mean evidence, not empty assertions {or ignoring the point as Hemenway and others who accept his arguments do}. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and an FP rate this low is certainly an extraordinary claim. {Based on the published NCVS results}, you go ahead and find me the evidence that {they were} even aware of this FP sensitivity issue, much less that {they were} able to demonstrate that {they} had it controlled{.}

Here are some questions that I hope you will actually answer.

1. Have you ever questioned the gun crime data on the same logical basis that you question Kleck’s data? If not, why not?
2. Same questions for Hemenway and other similar researchers.
3. Are crimes committed by people with guns numerically comparable, statistically speaking, with alien encounters?
4. Do you actually believe that Kleck, Marvin Wolfgang, “a pioneer of quantitative and theoretical criminology” and “the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world,” and Dr. Sudman, “expert in survey sampling and the design of survey questionnaires,” and author or co-author of nearly 20 books including “classic textbooks for students and lay readers trying to grapple with statistics” missed your very elementary statistics point regarding false positives?
5. Do you actually believe that an elementary statistics point that got by Wolfgang and Sudman was caught by a professor of health policy?
6. Do you believe that your point, legitimately and conveniently only applies to DGUs, and not to crimes committed by people with guns?

Perhaps Hemenway’s facile critique is not as honest as you think.

I appreciate your wanting to be scientifically informed without getting too deep, but, though not all science is statistical, the science of gun violence is, as much as you would like to think that you can simply intuit your way to the truth without looking at any hard data or facts on the ground. Because, you really ought to watch out for this tendency to think that you, despite not really understanding what is going on, have found neat little logical inconsistencies in the thinking of large numbers of scientists who do understand the science down to the nitty gritty. This almost never happens, except in bumblebee lala-land.

It's funny that you say you "weren't impressed" by Hemenway's take on the false positives, two sentences after you concede that you aren't actually able to fully understand the science. It's a debate about a technical scientific point that you don't understand, and you even know that you don't understand it. What do you expect to be impressed about, word choice? Font selection? As I pointed out above, the "circular logic" you think you found was actually a concrete technical flaw regarding FP sensitivity. Yes, superficially it sounds like he's use the fact that DGUs are rare to prove that DGUs are rare. But this is sophomoric nonsense, which quickly becomes apparent if you scratch the surface even slightly.

I’ll mostly skip this for now. I am trying to be civil and I think what I’ve written above actually addresses most of this (snark aside).

I will, however, speak to the bumblebee point that you so love. I heard that from a professor of fluid dynamics in one of the top ten schools in the US in my discipline. There were no creationists websites (or any other kind as we know them now) in existence. Believe what you wish. In any event, I backed down immediately as I could not be sure that I was correctly remembering an off the cuff remark from many years ago. Apparently you have a hard time accepting admissions of mistakes.

The point I was trying to make is still sound and I stand by it: observation trumps scientific theory. That is true whether the subject is guns and crime or planetary orbits. It is quite possible that, despite my backing down, the professor said exactly what I quoted him as saying. Scientists do say things like that:

Now, for the first time, it has found a planet in orbit around a double star. Laurance Doyle from the SETI Institute in California says these twin stars are 200 light-years away from us in the constellation Cygnus, and each one has a slightly different hue.

"You have an orange star that's 69 percent the mass of the sun, and it is basically dancing with a 20-percent-the-mass-of-the-sun red star," he says. "And they go around each other every 41 days."
…

One of the biggest conundrums is understanding the very existence of planets around twin stars, "because they shouldn't be there," says Dave Charbonneau, a professor of astronomy at Harvard University. He says the standard story is that planets form from a pancake-shaped disk of material that's left over after a singleton star coalesces.

Source: http://www.vpr.net/npr/140499991/

Saying that the planet shouldn’t be there is functionally identical to saying that bumblebees shouldn’t be able to fly, as far as my argument was concerned. Go ahead, say that the professor of astronomy at Harvard is a creationist hack.

My point stands. Observation trumps theory. It would have stood even if a professor of Harvard hadn’t validated it last week. Refute my point if you can, but going on about the bumblebee is silly, especially after I admitted that I might have misspoken.

And then there's the fact that, while you don't want to get too close to the actual science, you also don't trust the scientific consensus. The researchers from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, JHopkins, UCDavis, UPenn, UChicago, Duke, etc., that stuff you mostly toss out.

See above. Did I get close enough to the science statistics? (Math isn’t science, it is a tool of science.)

As for tossing out the “scientific consensus” all I said was that

… I would throw out ALL research funded by the Joyce Foundation and by the NRA on gun issues. I would throw out ALL research by Phillip Morris on tobacco. I would look with a very jaundiced eye at research on a product funded by its producer or industry organization.

If you are admitting that most of the researchers from Harvard, Yale, Stanford, JHopkins, UCDavis, UPenn, UChicago, Duke, etc., are funded by the Joyce Foundation, then yes, I throw out most of the research from those places. What of it? Why should I accept that “science” when you wouldn’t accept a “scientific consensus” paid for by the NRA?

Stop dodging this point and answer—yes or no—would you? Would you accept science funded by the NRA as legitimate? How about the tobacco industry?

On the other hand, the stuff coming from the criminology department at FSU and the "Independence Institute" you think is golden. I'm sure you've got some way of justifying it all to yourself, but I must say you do seem to have yourself fenced off pretty well from reality.

Reality equals using one methodological standard for DGUs and another for everything else? Reality equals using studies by people who have no clue about the criminal-victim interaction and demonstrate it in their studies by speculating about statistically miniscule about gun take-aways? Reality equals admitting the obvious logical error I pointed out about the car and then speculating that “actually they probably handled {the coding} correctly”—without one shred of math, science, hard data or anything else besides trust in the situational expertise of people with expertise in epidemiology, nursing and maps?!

I do not say this to offend you—if you have something substantive and enlightening to say I don’t want you to stalk off without saying it—but if that’s reality, I have fenced myself off from it, and I’m proud to have done so. (On the other hand, if I am mistaken, I want to be corrected. Better to be embarrassed today than to be wrong the rest of my life.)

If I point out that you are ignoring the bulk of the mainstream research, you can insist this is an appeal to authority, and then retreat into talk of germs, the Joyce Foundation, bumblebees. If I point out specific technical flaws, you say that I'm putting too much emphasis on the statistics, and you start looking for ways to misleadingly quote either me or Hemenway or whoever to try and find a superficial logical inconsistency. Wouldn't it be easier to just look directly at the actual science, with a fair and open mind, and figure out what's going on?

I believe that I have looked at the science with a fair and open mind. If I have misleadingly quoted you, I apologize in advance in the hope that you will point out the error and I will be able to acknowledge my error in fact and not in faith in your good word.

I still think you overestimate the statistics. Where the statistical analysis is pointed (and where it isn’t) can be much more important than how mathematically sound it is. I think I have demonstrated that.

So please, rip my arguments to shreds if you can. And I will be the first to thank you if you succeed.

<arghh, forgot Planet citation>

[TPaine7]

304. Oops, here's my citation for Wolfgang being a “pioneer of quantitative and theoretical criminology"

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/history.htm

[DanTex]

307. The FP thing.

We might have to take this part by part because it's getting long, and (believe it or not) I occasionally have other things I need to do besides argue about guns on the internet... Anyway, I'll get to what I can.

So the reason I bring Kleck up is that, the pro-gunners always adopt super-skeptical viewpoints to most of the gun studies, but then when it comes to Kleck, a significantly shakier result scientifically, suddenly the skepticism disappears and the pro-gunners are willing to accept all sorts of questionable assumptions and omissions.

You could resolve the FP thing pretty quickly by simply finding the part of the Kleck's paper where he acknowledges the FP sensitivity issue, and demonstrates that in this particular survey the FP rate is well below 1%. I'll give you the link again, in case this time you decide to actually search for this.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
And I mean not just generalities, but something like "We need an FP rate of well below 1%, which is admittedly a tall order, but here is why we are able to achieve this". You ask what kind of evidence I am looking for, but, see, that's not my problem, that's Kleck's problem -- he's the one making the extraordinary claim, remember. Maybe he could point to other surveys with FP rates below 1%, and show that he used similar countermeasures.

In any case, you don't find any justification of the sub-1% FP rate. Instead you get stuff like this:

If one were committed to rejecting the seemingly overwhelming survey evidence on the frequency of DGU, one could speculate, albeit without any empirical foundation whatsoever, that nearly all of the people reporting such experiences are simply making them up. We feel this is implausible. An R who had actually experienced a DGU would have no difficulty responding with a "no" answer to our DGU question because a "no" response was not followed up by further questioning. On the other hand, lying with a false "yes" answer required a good deal more imagination and energy. Since we asked as many as nineteen questions on the topic, this would entail spontaneously inventing as many as nineteen plausible and internally consistent bits of false information and doing so in a way that gave no hint to experienced interviewers that they were being deceived.

Suppose someone persisted in believing in the anomalous NCVS estimates of DGU frequency and wanted to use a "dishonest respondent" hypothesis to account for estimates from the present survey that are as much as thirty times higher. In order to do this, one would have to suppose that twenty-nine out of every thirty people reporting a DGU in the present survey were lying. There is no precedent in criminological survey research for such an enormous level of intentional and sustained falsification.

The banal and undramatic nature of the reported incidents also undercuts the dishonest respondent speculation. While all the incidents involved a crime, and usually a fairly serious one, only 8% of the alleged gun defenders claimed to have shot their adversaries, and only 24% claim to have fired their gun. If large numbers of Rs were inventing their accounts, one would think they would have created more exciting scenarios.

By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders.

You know, in science you're supposed to bend over backwards to question your own results, point out all possible flaws or alternate explanations, etc. But Kleck is doing just the opposite, adopting a haughty and dismissive tone towards anyone who might question the results. As if to say "some idiot douchebags might want to deny that this awesome study is flawless, but they're obviously wrong, after all we asked up to 19 questions. So from now on nobody sane should doubt that I am right."

Kleck emphasizes how hard it is to "lie" (more precisely, give an incorrect answer), but what he misses is actually how easy it would actually be. You could exaggerate, you could recount an episode from a long time ago, you could claim someone else's DGU as your own, you could claim than an OGU was actually a DGU. Doing any of these would make it pretty easy to answer "up to 19" questions, most of which are fairly routine "where did it take place ... did you know the offender ... did you shoot ...". And then there's the fact that, as you can personally attest to, gunners most certainly do play out DGU scripts in their heads, and they do consider DGUs to be positive things, and DGU stories do circulate among gunners, meaning most gunners inclined to give a false DGU would have a reference story.

More importantly, notice the second paragraph here, where he claims that if the survey were flawed "one would have to suppose that twenty-nine out of every thirty people reporting a DGU in the present survey were lying." Now, while this is technically true, it is grossly misleading. What he is doing is dressing up a 1% FP rate as "29 out of 30" people lying. Based on what you have been saying, I think your understanding of statistics is sophisticated enough to see why this is misleading. Loosely speaking, it's because "people reporting a DGU" is not a naturally occurring subset of the people surveyed, since it depends on the survey answer. No, that is not a technically precise description, but I think you get what I mean.

And I do hope you'd agree that Kleck at least has the duty to point out that a 1% false positive rate would invalidate the whole study. This is not a small issue, and not mentioning it is a pretty significant omission, and in fact, I actually think the journal editors should have made Kleck put something like that in there (though admittedly I don't know anything about the standards or traditions of this journal). The journal did invite Hemenway to write a rebuttal, but in my opinion the admission that sub-1% FP is very low belongs in the original paper. Kleck is trying to give the impression that the results of this study are only otherwise explainable by a huge wave of dishonesty, but in reality, only 1% of the people surveyed would have to give incorrect answers. Switching around the numbers like this is something I'd expect (from anyone on any side of any debate) in a political press release, but not from a scientist.

He goes on to point out (without citations) that there is no precedent in criminology for this. Of course, the question is, do the other studies he is talking about here have a 1% positive response rate. Because, as you and I now agree, if he is talking about a bunch of surveys with 10% or more positive response rate, that's a different story, and you and I should also agree that this comparison would then be misleading. Again, if getting the FP rate below 1% is routine, then the least he could do is provide a few explicit examples. But he doesn't. In fact, even in his rebuttal to Hemenway's rebuttal, he still fails to come up with any examples of surveys with such a low FP rate. He mentions some surveys with a high FN rate, but as you and I know, a high FN rate doesn't imply a low FP rate, and the FP rate is key here.

Granted, DGUs are very rare if by very rare you mean "in the range of 1% or less" (accepting your numbers for the sake of discussion). But this is not what Hemenway is saying. He is saying that DGUs are very rare, and by "very rare" he means "so much lower than 1% that they invalidate Kleck's numbers and the corroborating evidence generated by over a dozen other studies." That application of the “rareness” argument is what makes Hemenway’s point circular.

Again, Hemenway's argument is not circular. His argument is that, due to FPs, Kleck's study is consistent with both the hypothesis that the DGU rate is 1% or 0.05%. Hemenway is correctly pointing out that there is no way to know what the FP rate is for sure. If the FP rate is close to 1%, then the DGU rate would be around 0.05%. If the FP rate is close to 0.05% then the DGU rate is around 1% (again these numbers for argument's sake). So the point is that, unless Kleck has some real evidence that the FP rate is well below 1%, Kleck's study doesn't help distinguish between those two hypotheses, which means it provides no new information about the DGU count. Hemenway is not simply assuming that DGUs are so rare as to invalidate Kleck's study -- he's just saying that they could be very rare despite the results of the survey, and that to determine the DGU rate, you have to look at other evidence. The conclusion that 0.05% is closer to the truth comes from this other evidence. Evidence like NCVS.

Which brings us to the second part of argument, which is external validation. Yes, I omitted this in my last post, but I mentioned it in another post a while back. The point is that if you look to other sources of data to validate the DGU number, you consistently find that Kleck's numbers don't make any sense by an order of magnitude.

Now, Kleck will point out that there are 10-20 other DGU studies that support his number, but these studies use a very similar methodology and therefore are subject to the same difficulties. Another instance of Kleck's misleadingness is to suggest that NCVS numbers are "anomalous" because it is inconsistent with a whole bunch of phone surveys. Of course, NCVS is not just one study, it gets repeated every year (or is it every other year, I forget and am too lazy to look it up). So what we have is a situation where two different methodologies consistently result in different estimates of the DGU number, and both methodologies have been repeated several times.

A word on NCVS. In order for Kleck's numbers to be right, NCVS must have a false negative rate of 95% for DGU reporting. And, unlike the "29 out of 30" number Kleck presents, the 95% false negative rate is not similarly misleading, because "people who had a DGU" is indeed what I described as above as a "naturally occurring" subset of the study group. This is because whether someone actually had a DGU does not depend on what they said to NCVS (as opposed to "people who said they had a DGU", which does depend on the response). So, for Kleck's numbers to be right 95% of this naturally occurring group of people would have to have given incorrect info to NCVS.

I won't go on too much about external validation, because I wrote a lot about it in that other thread, but the fact remains, it poses a serious challenge to the Kleck numbers, because there are multiple sources of external validation that fail pretty severely. And one general principle of experimental science is that a measurement corroborated by different kinds of evidence is a lot stronger than a measurement found using the same measurement technique over and over. That's why the fact that 10-20 or however many phone surveys back the Kleck numbers is not nearly as significant as the fact that police reports, gunshot wounds, self-defense killings, all these and other numbers match up very well with NCVS and not at all with Kleck.

I will point out that Kleck's responses to the external validation issue are grossly inadequate, to the point that either he is really missing some things or he might be purposely trying to skate by, avoiding the substantive questions and instead answering straw arguments. To give just one example, he claims that very few DGUs get reported to the police, even though his survey results showed that over 60% get reported to the police. Again, see the other post of mine for more detail on Kleck's inadequate responses.

I will mention one additional "sanity check" that the Kleck numbers fail: the number of lives supposedly saved by DGUs.

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. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

So to start, 400K is completely preposterous. This is because that is some 20-30X higher than the homicide rate. This would imply that, without DGUs, the US would have by far the highest homicide rate in the world, 2-3X the likes of Honduras or El Salvador. But even if you are prepared to believe that, you realize that if this many lives were actually saved by guns, this would show up in the case-control studies like Branas or Kellermann, because whatever minor complaints you may have about coding of guns in nearby cars or whatever else would never be able to obscure an effect this strong. You see, if guns stop 400K homicides per year, this would imply that people without guns would be at far greater homicide risk, after all, they would be missing out on this essential safety tool. Since gun owners account for less half of the population, then why are we not observing 400K homicides among the non-gun-owning population? Is it that gun owners live a lifestyle that puts them at 20X (more actually) homicide risk, and that they need all those DGUs just to "break even"?

The answer to all that is, of course not. So you get the "if even one-tenth of these people are accurate" line (and even one tenth is very hard to believe for similar reasons). Here's the thing. Once you start finding numbers that need to be reduced by a factor of 10X to even be plausible, that means your estimates are completely worthless. If you are off by a factor of 10, it means that there is something severely wrong, you are way off the mark, and the number could just as easily be off by a factor of 100 or 1000. And in this particular case, you get all sorts of numbers that need to be divided by 10X or more to make sense, this is just one example, see that other post of mine for more.

You keep talking about hard data and facts; Supposedly I’m afraid of them. So let’s look at some data and facts. I’ll use mostly your data and reasoning.

1) 1% or 2.5M is a result that can easily result from false positives—source: your post 262
2) highest annual estimate of criminal gun use = 847,652 as of time of Kleck’s study source: NCVS as cited by Kleck
3) if 2,500,000 = 1%

then

847,652 = .34%

That’s almost exactly 3 times as small. So let’s apply your (and Hemenway’s) logic:

Very good point, and you would already know the answer if you read some of the other papers on DGUs besides Kleck's (for example Hemenway). The answer is explained here (see table 1). You see, NCVS is not the only estimate of criminal gun use. It is also possible to do a Kleck-style phone survey, and if you do that, predictably, you get a much larger number of criminal gun uses than NCVS reports. And, as that bulletin explains, if you compare the DGUs versus gun crimes estimates from phone surveys, you find a lot more criminal uses. If you compare DGUs versus gun crimes from NCVS, again you find a lot more gun crimes. There is only one way to conclude that there are more DGUs than gun crimes. Do you know what it is?

You guessed it! You take the phone survey methodology for DGUs, and the NCVS methodology for gun crimes. The reason NCVS gives lower numbers in both cases seems to be primarily because NCVS asks about victimization first, and only later about details like gun use (also the fact that NCVS is face-to-face and is superior in other ways also contributes to the accuracy). This means, that, with NCVS, you get less FPs and more FNs in both cases. And if you go through the external validation I discussed, there is pretty strong evidence that NCVS, while it probably underestimates both gun crimes and DGUs slightly, is much closer to the mark than the phone surveys. But, even if forget all that, and insist that the Kleck methodology is superior, you should use that methodology for both DGUs and criminal uses. Don't you agree? I mean, it would be silly to use the Kleck phone survey methodology to measure DGUs, and then NCVS to measure criminal gun uses, and then compare those two numbers, because of the obvious methodological differences. Yet that is exactly what Kleck does.


OK. On to the Wolfgang thing, you probably missed his clarification (emphasis mine):

For those who have not read Volume 86, Number 1 of the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology on Guns and Violence Symposium, I would like to make clear that I had been asked to write only a commentary, not an original research article. I focused my commentary on an article titled Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz.

Let me read the first and last paragraphs of the commentary that I originally made, titled A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed.

The first paragraph reads:

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.

The last paragraph of my commentary reads as follows:

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.

The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticism of all survey research, including theirs. I (Page 618) did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/WolfgangRemarks.htm

So, to review... You'll note that, first, he points out it was only a commentary, not a research paper, meaning that he hadn't gone through all the material in complete detail. And, of course, that other part I highlighted indicates that by no means was KG paper was immune from general criticism of survey research, which includes stuff like watch out if you're positive response rate gets down near 1%. Finally, you'll note that in the excerpt you quoted, he holds out for the possibility that Frank Zimring or Philip Cook might find a flaw in the KG work. And in fact, none other than Philip Cook soon did come out with a paper on DGUs, making many of the points I have made here.

It is worth repeating that a lot of what Cook and Hemenway and myself (and others e.g. McDowall) are saying is precisely that when you try and validate the survey results from KG with external and often more concrete sources of data (police reports, homicides, gunshot wounds, etc.), this is where it becomes evident that the KG numbers are due to something other than legit DGUs, most likely FPs. And this is right in line with Wolfgang's comment about the problems with survey research. Nobody is denying that Kleck made a big effort to keep FPs down, but (contrary to Kleck's brazen assertions) this in itself is not enough to accept the results as correct, particularly in light of the other data available.

OK. That's it for now. I may get to some of the other stuff tomorrow if I have time, although as I've mentioned several times, I prefer to deal with the substance itself. To me the criminology vs pub health vs economics thing is kind of silly. Just look at the papers, look at the research. Also, if you really think the gun-in-nearby-car issue is some big problem that shows that public health people have no business studying gun violence, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. Good luck convincing a science-minded neutral party of that one, though...

[TPaine7]

315. Sorry I took so long to respond. It figures that I would have a good conversation

like this when I have my hands full at home and at work.

You could resolve the FP thing pretty quickly by simply finding the part of the Kleck's paper where he acknowledges the FP sensitivity issue, and demonstrates that in this particular survey the FP rate is well below 1%. I'll give you the link again, in case this time you decide to actually search for this.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

And I mean not just generalities, but something like "We need an FP rate of well below 1%, which is admittedly a tall order, but here is why we are able to achieve this". You ask what kind of evidence I am looking for, but, see, that's not my problem, that's Kleck's problem -- he's the one making the extraordinary claim, remember. Maybe he could point to other surveys with FP rates below 1%, and show that he used similar countermeasures.

I concede that it isn’t there.

I will restate my own point more directly. The NCVS reports many types of crime—including gun crimes—that fall well below the 1% response figure. To my knowledge, neither you nor Hemenway request of the NCVS any acknowledgment of the FP sensitivity issue, or any demonstration in their report that in the NCVS survey the FP rate is well below 1%. Why is that? Isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander?

You know, in science you're supposed to bend over backwards to question your own results, point out all possible flaws or alternate explanations, etc. But Kleck is doing just the opposite, adopting a haughty and dismissive tone towards anyone who might question the results. As if to say "some idiot douchebags might want to deny that this awesome study is flawless, but they're obviously wrong, after all we asked up to 19 questions. So from now on nobody sane should doubt that I am right."

Kleck emphasizes how hard it is to "lie" (more precisely, give an incorrect answer), but what he misses is actually how easy it would actually be. You could exaggerate, you could recount an episode from a long time ago, you could claim someone else's DGU as your own, you could claim than an OGU was actually a DGU. Doing any of these would make it pretty easy to answer "up to 19" questions, most of which are fairly routine "where did it take place ... did you know the offender ... did you shoot ...". And then there's the fact that, as you can personally attest to, gunners most certainly do play out DGU scripts in their heads, and they do consider DGUs to be positive things, and DGU stories do circulate among gunners, meaning most gunners inclined to give a false DGU would have a reference story.

How do you know that most of the questions were routine? I disagree with your characterization of the questions you yourself posed. They are exactly the type of questions that trip people up in cross examinations.

Many men have fantasies of sleeping with lots of beautiful women. And it is easy to lie and say that they have, if all they are doing is bragging at a bar. But relaying a reasonable, internally consistent fantasy of a sexual conquest involving a supermodel on the spur of the moment, answering up to nineteen questions about the encounter and then repeating the same story hours or days later to another person is not as easy as you might think. Truth is a lot easier to keep up with than lies.

I am not an especially dull witted person, but I wouldn’t like to face an impromptu cross examination on a fantasy that I was reporting as fact. I think that a well thought-out series of questions would catch me in the lie.

Kleck’s observation that respondents described less than glorious heroism in most cases undercuts your fantasy theory. A man describing his fantasy date with a supermodel where they end up cuddling (with no no intercourse) is roughly equivalent to a “fantasy” DGU where no shots were fired. It doesn’t make sense as a fantasy and doesn’t seem designed to impress the anonymous survey worker. “Fantasy” is not a credible explanation IMO.

More importantly, notice the second paragraph here, where he claims that if the survey were flawed "one would have to suppose that twenty-nine out of every thirty people reporting a DGU in the present survey were lying." Now, while this is technically true, it is grossly misleading. What he is doing is dressing up a 1% FP rate as "29 out of 30" people lying. Based on what you have been saying, I think your understanding of statistics is sophisticated enough to see why this is misleading. Loosely speaking, it's because "people reporting a DGU" is not a naturally occurring subset of the people surveyed, since it depends on the survey answer. No, that is not a technically precise description, but I think you get what I mean.

It is only misleading if he is trying to pretend that it is a naturally occurring subset. I see no indication that he is.

And I do hope you'd agree that Kleck at least has the duty to point out that a 1% false positive rate would invalidate the whole study. This is not a small issue, and not mentioning it is a pretty significant omission, and in fact, I actually think the journal editors should have made Kleck put something like that in there (though admittedly I don't know anything about the standards or traditions of this journal). The journal did invite Hemenway to write a rebuttal, but in my opinion the admission that sub-1% FP is very low belongs in the original paper. Kleck is trying to give the impression that the results of this study are only otherwise explainable by a huge wave of dishonesty, but in reality, only 1% of the people surveyed would have to give incorrect answers. Switching around the numbers like this is something I'd expect (from anyone on any side of any debate) in a political press release, but not from a scientist.

Once again, does the NCVS have a “duty to point out that a 1% false positive rate would invalidate” their entire results on gun crimes? If not, why is there a double standard?

He goes on to point out (without citations) that there is no precedent in criminology for this. Of course, the question is, do the other studies he is talking about here have a 1% positive response rate. Because, as you and I now agree, if he is talking about a bunch of surveys with 10% or more positive response rate, that's a different story, and you and I should also agree that this comparison would then be misleading. Again, if getting the FP rate below 1% is routine, then the least he could do is provide a few explicit examples. But he doesn't. In fact, even in his rebuttal to Hemenway's rebuttal, he still fails to come up with any examples of surveys with such a low FP rate. He mentions some surveys with a high FN rate, but as you and I know, a high FN rate doesn't imply a low FP rate, and the FP rate is key here.

I don’t see how you could reasonably cite evidence of a negative. If he cited 10 criminological studies that illustrated his point, there would still be many others. The only way to cite evidence would be a comprehensive citation of all relevant studies, which would probably be unwieldy. I agree with you that he should have cited some examples.

Again, Hemenway's argument is not circular. His argument is that, due to FPs, Kleck's study is consistent with both the hypothesis that the DGU rate is 1% or 0.05%. Hemenway is correctly pointing out that there is no way to know what the FP rate is for sure. If the FP rate is close to 1%, then the DGU rate would be around 0.05%. If the FP rate is close to 0.05% then the DGU rate is around 1% (again these numbers for argument's sake). So the point is that, unless Kleck has some real evidence that the FP rate is well below 1%, Kleck's study doesn't help distinguish between those two hypotheses, which means it provides no new information about the DGU count. Hemenway is not simply assuming that DGUs are so rare as to invalidate Kleck's study -- he's just saying that they could be very rare despite the results of the survey, and that to determine the DGU rate, you have to look at other evidence. The conclusion that 0.05% is closer to the truth comes from this other evidence. Evidence like NCVS.

Parts of this sound like very strong argument on second reading. I will have to re-read Hemenway in the light of this paragraph. (It has been many years since I really read it.)

There is a glaring problem, however, with your citation of NCVS. The NCVS suffers from a .34% positive response rate with respect to gun crime. They obviously have an even smaller response rate with respect to DGUs (else they wouldn’t estimate them so much lower than Kleck does). How can a study that has “Kleck's primary flaw”—except several times as bad—be cited as authoritative evidence against Kleck?! There seems to be a double standard at work. Kleck must make a big deal about a positive response rate of about 1% and demonstrate that he has numerically accounted for it; NCVS has no such duty with respect to a positive response rate that is much lower, yet it is authoritative evidence that can be cited seriously—even against a source with a response rate several times better? Why is that?

Which brings us to the second part of argument, which is external validation. Yes, I omitted this in my last post, but I mentioned it in another post a while back. The point is that if you look to other sources of data to validate the DGU number, you consistently find that Kleck's numbers don't make any sense by an order of magnitude.

Now, Kleck will point out that there are 10-20 other DGU studies that support his number, but these studies use a very similar methodology and therefore are subject to the same difficulties. Another instance of Kleck's misleadingness is to suggest that NCVS numbers are "anomalous" because it is inconsistent with a whole bunch of phone surveys. Of course, NCVS is not just one study, it gets repeated every year (or is it every other year, I forget and am too lazy to look it up). So what we have is a situation where two different methodologies consistently result in different estimates of the DGU number, and both methodologies have been repeated several times.

A word on NCVS. In order for Kleck's numbers to be right, NCVS must have a false negative rate of 95% for DGU reporting. And, unlike the "29 out of 30" number Kleck presents, the 95% false negative rate is not similarly misleading, because "people who had a DGU" is indeed what I described as above as a "naturally occurring" subset of the study group. This is because whether someone actually had a DGU does not depend on what they said to NCVS (as opposed to "people who said they had a DGU", which does depend on the response). So, for Kleck's numbers to be right 95% of this naturally occurring group of people would have to have given incorrect info to NCVS.

I agree with Kleck that a call from a government agency asking about your crime victimization will probably get a lot less people volunteering that they used guns to defend themselves than a call even from a government agency asking if you used a gun to defend yourself. It’s almost as if the government called asking about your health issues and you volunteered that you were a medical marijuana user—you would be a statistical outlier.

If I were a medical marijuana user, I would NOT volunteer that fact to an anonymous government caller, especially one who didn’t ask specifically about it. If they asked specifically about it, I would probably not have time to finish the voluntary survey. The same logic applies, more or less, to an anonymous government survey on gun use. The government has miniscule credibility on either subject. Their reasons for wanting to know people’s business are extremely suspect.

By contrast, a self-identified scientific survey that offers specific assurances of anonymity up front would be much more likely to get positive answers—or any answers at all.

I won't go on too much about external validation, because I wrote a lot about it in that other thread, but the fact remains, it poses a serious challenge to the Kleck numbers, because there are multiple sources of external validation that fail pretty severely. And one general principle of experimental science is that a measurement corroborated by different kinds of evidence is a lot stronger than a measurement found using the same measurement technique over and over. That's why the fact that 10-20 or however many phone surveys back the Kleck numbers is not nearly as significant as the fact that police reports, gunshot wounds, self-defense killings, all these and other numbers match up very well with NCVS and not at all with Kleck.

I will point out that Kleck's responses to the external validation issue are grossly inadequate, to the point that either he is really missing some things or he might be purposely trying to skate by, avoiding the substantive questions and instead answering straw arguments. To give just one example, he claims that very few DGUs get reported to the police, even though his survey results showed that over 60% get reported to the police. Again, see the other post of mine for more detail on Kleck's inadequate responses.

I will have to look into this, especially the 60% issue.

I will mention one additional "sanity check" that the Kleck numbers fail: the number of lives supposedly saved by DGUs.

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. It is not possible to know how many lives are actually saved this way, for the simple reason that no one can be certain how crime incidents would have turned out had the participants acted differently than they actually did. But surely this is too serious a matter to simply assume that practically everyone who says he believes he saved a life by using a gun was wrong.

So to start, 400K is completely preposterous. This is because that is some 20-30X higher than the homicide rate. This would imply that, without DGUs, the US would have by far the highest homicide rate in the world, 2-3X the likes of Honduras or El Salvador. But even if you are prepared to believe that, you realize that if this many lives were actually saved by guns, this would show up in the case-control studies like Branas or Kellermann, because whatever minor complaints you may have about coding of guns in nearby cars or whatever else would never be able to obscure an effect this strong. You see, if guns stop 400K homicides per year, this would imply that people without guns would be at far greater homicide risk, after all, they would be missing out on this essential safety tool. Since gun owners account for less half of the population, then why are we not observing 400K homicides among the non-gun-owning population? Is it that gun owners live a lifestyle that puts them at 20X (more actually) homicide risk, and that they need all those DGUs just to "break even"?

The answer to all that is, of course not. So you get the "if even one-tenth of these people are accurate" line (and even one tenth is very hard to believe for similar reasons). Here's the thing. Once you start finding numbers that need to be reduced by a factor of 10X to even be plausible, that means your estimates are completely worthless. If you are off by a factor of 10, it means that there is something severely wrong, you are way off the mark, and the number could just as easily be off by a factor of 100 or 1000. And in this particular case, you get all sorts of numbers that need to be divided by 10X or more to make sense, this is just one example, see that other post of mine for more.

I see no problem whatsoever with the 400K number. Many criminals who use weapons have no intent of killing or even hurting anyone with them. But in order to get what they want, be it a car, a wallet, a purse or sex, they convince the victim that life is at stake. Many of them are good at convincing others that they will certainly be killed if they don’t cooperate. A much smaller number are willing to follow through. It should not be surprising that a first or second time victim cannot see through the acting skills of a veteran thug.

Remember, the 400K number is not Kleck’s estimate, it is the victims' perceptions of the situation. A victim is much more likely to be wrong about whether he would have been killed if he hadn’t used a gun defensively than about whether three toughs with tire irons actually had him cornered in a parking garage (for example). So while the victim’s perceptions were almost certainly far from reality on the point of whether or not they would have been killed, that is exactly what we should expect.

The sanity check is, no disrespect intended, not sane. It assumes an unrealistic view of the world, a view that when a thug threatens death credibly enough to deceive a victim, he (or she) will usually follow through. That is simply not credible. It is the sort of mistake I would expect from a safety expert, a doctor, a nurse, an epidemiologist or the like—but not from a criminologist.

Very good point, and you would already know the answer if you read some of the other papers on DGUs besides Kleck's (for example Hemenway). The answer is explained here (see table 1). You see, NCVS is not the only estimate of criminal gun use. It is also possible to do a Kleck-style phone survey, and if you do that, predictably, you get a much larger number of criminal gun uses than NCVS reports. And, as that bulletin explains, if you compare the DGUs versus gun crimes estimates from phone surveys, you find a lot more criminal uses. If you compare DGUs versus gun crimes from NCVS, again you find a lot more gun crimes. There is only one way to conclude that there are more DGUs than gun crimes. Do you know what it is?

You guessed it! You take the phone survey methodology for DGUs, and the NCVS methodology for gun crimes. The reason NCVS gives lower numbers in both cases seems to be primarily because NCVS asks about victimization first, and only later about details like gun use (also the fact that NCVS is face-to-face and is superior in other ways also contributes to the accuracy). This means, that, with NCVS, you get less FPs and more FNs in both cases. And if you go through the external validation I discussed, there is pretty strong evidence that NCVS, while it probably underestimates both gun crimes and DGUs slightly, is much closer to the mark than the phone surveys. But, even if forget all that, and insist that the Kleck methodology is superior, you should use that methodology for both DGUs and criminal uses. Don't you agree? I mean, it would be silly to use the Kleck phone survey methodology to measure DGUs, and then NCVS to measure criminal gun uses, and then compare those two numbers, because of the obvious methodological differences. Yet that is exactly what Kleck does.

Your point is well taken. Apples vs oranges is a valid criticism; I will have to investigate. Of course the NCVS has other problems that Hemenway doesn’t seem to mind, like the .34% response rate on violent crime and the fact that a government agency asking people to report their gun use (or even possession) is rather like a government agency (and especially a federal agency) asking about medical marijuana use. That remains true after the federal government has said it will not prosecute personal small-time marijuana use and after many states legalized it. It would remain true even after outright federal legalization.

People like Hemenway tend to downplay and minimize (or ignore) this reality. From their POV, guns are negative and gun rights are morally trivial and impediments to “sensible” gun control which is morally impeccable and beyond reproach in its methods and motives.

It is hard for them to comprehend that many Americans see things differently and actually believe that the efforts taken by the federal government to search public housing for guns without warrant, the seizures of various types of guns in New York, California, New Orleans, and other places, the illegal breaking and entering to confiscate steal individual’s guns without legal justification, the prosecution of people for defective guns that became “machine guns” through no fault of their own and the historic and continuing defiance to the Second Amendment in many states and locales actually has some bearing on the trustworthiness of government actors on the subjects of guns.

It is worth repeating that a lot of what Cook and Hemenway and myself (and others e.g. McDowall) are saying is precisely that when you try and validate the survey results from KG with external and often more concrete sources of data (police reports, homicides, gunshot wounds, etc.), this is where it becomes evident that the KG numbers are due to something other than legit DGUs, most likely FPs. And this is right in line with Wolfgang's comment about the problems with survey research. Nobody is denying that Kleck made a big effort to keep FPs down, but (contrary to Kleck's brazen assertions) this in itself is not enough to accept the results as correct, particularly in light of the other data available.

OK. That's it for now. I may get to some of the other stuff tomorrow if I have time, although as I've mentioned several times, I prefer to deal with the substance itself. To me the criminology vs pub health vs economics thing is kind of silly. Just look at the papers, look at the research. Also, if you really think the gun-in-nearby-car issue is some big problem that shows that public health people have no business studying gun violence, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. Good luck convincing a science-minded neutral party of that one, though...

I would not criticize a safety expert for stepping outside his area of expertise if he took the time to understand guns and did a study on accidental discharges, for example. Or a study on the safety effects of people who carry drunk. Or the effects of training on the accidental discharge rate. I would not criticize a trauma surgeon who did a study on wound ballistics.

But when a safety expert (Hemenway) critiques a criminologist’s study on criminal-victim encounters, we get things like the premise I addressed above—the idea that thugs who convince their victims that they will die will usually follow through. This, IMO, is ivory tower BS that any experienced criminologist, criminal or even non-academic with a little street savvy could see through.

The car coding issue, the idea that gun-takeaways are statistically significant, and now the idea that criminal death threats are usually credible all show the perils of simply looking at the statistics. Science is more than mathematical techniques. Having some expertise actually relevant to what one is studying is not a radical new idea dreamed up to defeat the honest and legitimate science of doctors and nurses practicing criminology.

So while I don’t think doctors, nurses, trauma surgeons and the like can’t study aspects of gun violence that actually fall within their areas of expertise, I do think they should avoid studying or weighing in on criminal-victim interactions unless they get help someone with relevant expertise.

[DanTex]

316. It would have been better to have this discussion in an OP that doesn't already have 315 posts...

I mentioned that I don't take the criminology/public health thing very seriously, but you do keep saying things like "any criminologist would know this", so I'll say a few words.

Regarding the suggestion that Hemenway (and by implication myself) have some ivory tower statistical mindset that results in, as you put it, "BS that any experienced criminologist, criminal or even non-academic with a little street savvy could see through". This is quite a claim, and off the bat, I'll point out that one mistake you make frequently is assuming that "any experienced criminologist" would think __________ when the reality is that the people who think __________ are just you, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, etc. Because there are plenty of experienced criminologists who disagree with you and Kleck about pretty much everything we have been discussing, it's just that perhaps you don't know about them or would rather pretend they didn't exist.

In the context of the "DGU war", let me point out again that Hemenway is only one source of criticism of Kleck. There is also this study by highly regarded criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig. Then there's this one, by criminologists David McDowall and Colin Loftin and sociologist and survey expert Stanley Presser. That paper is not available for free, but this earlier one by McDowall and criminologist Brian Wiersema is. So clearly, at least in this situation, the idea that criminologists say one thing and public health people say another is totally false.

You and I should be able to agree that Philip Cook is not just an experienced criminologist, but actually one of the top experts on gun violence. This is one reason that Wolfgang, you recall, mentioned Cook by name as someone who he'd like to hear from. Not only did Cook fail to "see through" Hemenway's arguments, he did the opposite, endorsing much of what Hemenway had to say. And not just in offhand remarks: Cook went so far as to co-author a paper with Hemenway, thus putting his name and considerable reputation behind these ideas. So much for the idea that criminologists generally find fault with Hemenway's thinking.

And now let's take a look at the exact idea you ridiculed, that the total number of lives that DGU respondents claim to have saved serves as a "sanity check". Yes, I'm talking about the specific thing that you described as "the sort of mistake I would expect from a safety expert, a doctor, a nurse, an epidemiologist or the like—but not from a criminologist". My recommendation is that you start reading criminologists other than Gary Kleck, for example Cook and Ludwig:

Each defensive gun user is asked to assess the likelihood that someone would have been killed had a gun not been used defensively. The results implied that 629,000 lives were "likely," "somewhat likely," or "very likely" saved through the DGU (95% confidence of 196,000 to 1,062,000). In comparison, data gathered by the FBI indicated 21,100 actual homicides in 1994 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1995). Even if we assume that only 1 of every 10 respondents was correct in believing that the gun use saved a life, the NSPOF estimates would imply that around three-quarters of all potentially fatal attacks are prevented by a gun-wielding citizen. More likely, either respondents are inventing the DGUs that they report or people who use guns against people are very poor at judging the danger that they or others face. The latter possibility calls into question the social benefits of these gun uses, a point to which we return below.

This isn't an issue of criminology versus epidemiology, it's actually just good scientific thinking: either the respondents are fabricating or exaggerating the DGU events, or they are really horrible at assessing the severity of the situation, and either way this casts doubt on the survey conclusions as a whole and particularly Kleck's interpretations. Obviously. Also, as I've pointed out, this is just one of many "sanity checks" that fail. You can read Hemenway or you can read my other DGU post for more examples. Or, if you want to stick to the "criminologists only" policy, you can read Cook and Ludwig.

Since we're on the topic of criminology vs public health, let's review your characterization of the authors of the study from the previous post:

The epidemiologists’, nurse’s and mapmaker’s study apparently lacked someone with expertise in human criminal behavior and criminal-victim interaction.

For starters, the "nurse" is actually a PhD whose research specialty is injury and violence. As far as the "mapmaker" Dennis Culhane, he's actually the head of something called the "Cartographic Modeling Laboratory" at UPenn. I guess you got the "mapmaker" thing from the word "cartography", but cartographic modeling actually involves building spacial models, and in this study it meant modeling the risk of gun assault based on location in Philly. I don't know if you really think calling Culhane a mapmaker helps your case in any way. To me, it illustrates your cartoonish misunderstanding of what goes on in research universities, and your tendency to want to pigeonhole people as pointy-headed specialists in order to dismiss what they have to say. It would have taken about 10 seconds on google to figure out what cartographic modeling meant, but instead you chose to go for the "mapmaker" knock.

Actually, a very good illustration of the interdisciplinary nature of gun violence research can be found in one of the co-authors of the Branas study, Douglas Wiebe. You'd surely dismiss him as just another epidemiologists straying outside his field, but let's take a look at a few key parts of his profile:

His individualized psychology track had brought him into contact with child victims of abuse, including those who had been removed from their homes and were living in institutional settings. Concerned about the violence that such kids had experienced and the fact that so many had become perpetrators themselves, he pursued a master's degree in criminology. Finding research to be a place that he could channel the energy that had once gone into volleyball, he enrolled in doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine, where he received a PhD in 2000. There he took advantage of an interdisciplinary program, and reframed his research interests on violence and injury to consider how these occur as a function of the way people interact within the constraints of a given environment.

His dissertation work involved a national case-control study of the role of the environment in violence, and found a gun in the home to be a primary risk factor for homicide. The homicide risk associated with in-home guns is especially high for women, which Dr. Wiebe attributes to the "singular danger faced by women in abusive relationships." He published his results in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, given the clinical relevance of the Emergency Department (ED) as one of the few places in which domestic violence victims have contact with the healthcare system. Viewed from a public health perspective, visits to the ED provide an opportunity to identify individuals at risk as well as modifiable risk factors such as a gun in the home. This finding garnered national attention with coverage by The New York Times, and won student paper awards from both the American Public Health Association and the American Society of Criminology. Dr. Wiebe then pursued additional training in epidemiology and public health in a post-doctoral fellowship in violence prevention at the UCLA School of Public Health.

If you read his bio without prejudice, I'd say that he sounds like almost an ideal person to be studying gun violence. He most certainly does have expertise in criminology, as well as victim psychology, victim-criminal interaction, etc. In fact if you look up the School of Social Ecology you find it involved departments of criminology, psychology, and public policy. So here we have another counterexample to your claims about public health people and specifically about the authors of the Branas study.

But the larger point is that Wiebe is not unique. This idea that the two fields shun each other, that "any experienced criminologist" would be able to see through this "BS" is totally and completely wrong. In truth what most people who understand how scientific research works would be able to see through is the very superficial argument that public health people can't understand victim-criminal interactions, despite the fact that they've been studying gun violence for several decades, even collaborated with some of the top criminologists around. And this is why you find that most of the complaints that public health researchers lack the credentials and domain knowledge to study gun violence do not come from criminologists or any other academics, it's mostly pro-gunners on the internet. Yes, there are some criminologists who agree with you, and yes there are some articles like the one by (lawyer) Don Kates that has given rise to so many gunner talking points. But you do not get a broad chorus of criminologists rejecting public health research into gun violence the same way you and Kates do.

NCVS

I will restate my own point more directly. The NCVS reports many types of crime—including gun crimes—that fall well below the 1% response figure. To my knowledge, neither you nor Hemenway request of the NCVS any acknowledgment of the FP sensitivity issue, or any demonstration in their report that in the NCVS survey the FP rate is well below 1%. Why is that? Isn't what's good for the goose also good for the gander?
...
Once again, does the NCVS have a “duty to point out that a 1% false positive rate would invalidate” their entire results on gun crimes? If not, why is there a double standard?

First off, NCVS is a survey conducted by the Census Bureau, so I'm not sure if NCVS itself can have a "duty" to point out anything. But you can rest assured that the people who design and conduct NCVS are well aware of the many difficulties involved in surveying crime victimization, beyond just FPs and FNs. Also, it has been around for a long time, so criminologists are familiar with tendencies to overcount or undercount certain kinds of crimes. Since NCVS is the principal crime victimization survey in the US, its methodology has been finely tuned and tested extensively. I found this brief description of some of this work:

The National Crime Survey and its successor, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), underwent lengthy development periods featuring record check studies and split-ballot experiments to determine the best way to measure crime victimization. In the records check studies, the samples included known crime victims selected from police records. In survey parlance, these were studies of reverse records check—the records had been “checked” before the survey reports were ever elicited. The studies were done in Washington, D.C., Akron, Cleveland, Dayton, San Jose, and Baltimore (see Lehnen and Skogan, 1981, for a summary). A key objective of these early studies was to determine the best length for the reporting period for a survey, balancing the need to increase the number of crime reports with the need to reduce memory errors.

A second wave of studies informing the NCS design was carried out in the early 1980s by researchers at the Bureau of Social Science Research and the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (summarized by Martin et al., 1986). This second wave of developmental studies mainly involved split-ballot comparisons (in which random portions of the sample were assigned to different versions of the questionnaire) focusing on the “screening” items, in which respondents first indicate they have relevant incidents to report. Some of these studies were inspired by a conference (described in Biderman, 1980) that brought cognitive psychologists and survey researchers together to examine the memory issues raised by the NCS. Unfortunately, some of the most intriguing findings from the resulting experiments were never published and are buried in hard-to-find memoranda.

And then there's this 218-page study devoted entirely to studying how this one survey, NCVS, can be improved. And I'm sure there's more out there, so if you are concerned about FP issues or anything else about NCVS, then with a little googling you can probably find answers. Based on all this work has gone in to assessing and improving the accuracy of NCVS specifically, it is not much of a surprise that it represents the state-of-the-art in measuring crime victimization, and is generally considered higher quality than smaller private phone surveys.

As far as the specific issue of DGU false positives, and also false positives with gun crimes, in addition to the general points about the quality and accuracy of NCVS, there is also a more specific answer. NCVS first asks people if they were victims of a crime or attempted crime, and only people who say "yes" get a chance to report either DGU or a gun crime. This filtering greatly reduces the potential for FPs by reducing the number of people who even get a chance to answer a question about a gun to just those who report a victimization. Yes, Hemenway does make this argument, but before you say that "no criminologist would buy that BS", you should realize that Cook/Ludwig make the same point, as does McDowall. Also, as I pointed out in my last post, this has been tested: if you come out and directly ask either "have you used a gun in self-defense" or "have you been threatened or attacked with a gun", you get a lot more "yes" answers than if you only ask those people who have reported being victims of a crime.

Having said that, there are some legitimate reasons to think that NCVS might undercount DGUs. These are (1) they don't ask specifically about DGU, only about defensive or protective measures and (2) they don't ask about all kinds of crimes. So because of this, we will get some false negatives, but nowhere near the 95%+ FN rate that would be necessary for Kleck's numbers to be correct.

I agree with Kleck that a call from a government agency asking about your crime victimization will probably get a lot less people volunteering that they used guns to defend themselves than a call even from a government agency asking if you used a gun to defend yourself. It’s almost as if the government called asking about your health issues and you volunteered that you were a medical marijuana user—you would be a statistical outlier.

If I were a medical marijuana user, I would NOT volunteer that fact to an anonymous government caller, especially one who didn’t ask specifically about it. If they asked specifically about it, I would probably not have time to finish the voluntary survey. The same logic applies, more or less, to an anonymous government survey on gun use. The government has miniscule credibility on either subject. Their reasons for wanting to know people’s business are extremely suspect.

By contrast, a self-identified scientific survey that offers specific assurances of anonymity up front would be much more likely to get positive answers—or any answers at all.

This is certainly plausible, the question is whether it is true. It's also plausible that the opposite is true: people might trust a face-to-face interview with a Census worker more than someone who calls up and claims to be doing a private survey. After all, the results of NCVS are private by law, and despite the fact that Kleck claims that his survey was "anonymous", any even slightly paranoid person will explain to you that someone who just called your home phone can probably figure out who you are.

Of course, the question is whether there is any evidence to help us decide, and looking back over the Kleck paper, I don't seem to find any citations backing his claim that people trust private surveys more than the census. I suspect this is because the evidence points in the other direction, as pointed out by Tom Smith in his "call for truce":

The claim that DGUs are under-reported because the NCVSs suffer from "the taint of being conducted by, and on behalf of employees of the federal government" <4> and that respondents see themselves in effect as "speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government" <5> is improbable. The survey literature does not indicate that Bureau of the Census surveys are held in special suspicion. <6> If anything, it indicates that cooperation is greater than usual in part because of the high quality of Census interviewers and because most people accord the Bureau of the Census more legitimacy than given to other surveys.

My experience on this board and elsewhere is that pro-gunners greatly overestimate the reluctance of people to talk to surveyors about gun issues, projecting either their own feelings or those of gunners they know on to the general population. Incidentally, the same kind of bias shows up when pro-gunners greatly overestimate the opposition among gun owners to certain gun control laws. I recall one survey that found that gun owners were split around 50/50 on the issue of a national gun registry, and that only around 10% were "strongly opposed". But here on DU Guns, I would guess that around 90% of gunners are "strongly opposed" (to put it mildly), and that those 90% would go on to claim that most other gun owners share that feelings of strong opposition.

But never mind what my intuition or yours tells us here, if there is any real evidence that people are more willing to talk to private surveys rather than Census people about things like DGU, or even other things like drug use or potential criminal activity, it would be great if you or Kleck could present some. With regards to marijuana use, for example, it would be interesting to know whether there is evidence that shows a significant discrepancy between a Census survey and a private phone survey (and if so, whether there is any way to tell whether FNs or FPs are responsible). As I said, Smith indicates that the evidence generally points in the opposite direction, but either way I'd be surprised if this was a huge contributor to the divergence between Kleck and NCVS numbers.

[iverglas]

233. here's an easy question for you

The worst type of ignorance is not ignorance of multivariate regression or of case control study methodology but moral ignorance. One particularly virulent strain of moral ignorance is the type that hides dishonesty behind imagined "scientific" and "technical" superiority.

What are you talking abou?

For clarification: your next paragraph starts with this.

Your tactics remind me ...

Would you like to deny that you just called the poster you were addressing dishonest?

If so, you need to respond to my first question with a coherent and very specific statement of what you were talking about.

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

217. works both ways

But I guess since, for the most part, the pro-gunners have already made up their minds regardless of what the facts or science show, then why bother educating yourself.

Have you read the studies that question your view? If so, what makes your critique more valid than anyone elses? Oh yeah, you think all pro gunners are anti science, or scientifically illiterate. How about you? You claim to know what you are talking about, but...

Why should we be convinced by studies funded by the same organization that is funding astroturf organizations pushing an agenda that depends on the results of these studies for validity? Just on your say so because you claim that you know more about statistical analysis than anyone else around here? Appeal to your authority, the ultimate ego trip.

How silly of me to think that in order to really understand a case-control study with a multivariate regression that it helps to be familiar with case-control studies and multivariate regressions.

It is a safe bet the vast majority of antis don't either. Most people who are agnostic on the issue don't either. If you are so scientifically literate, then you should have no trouble explaining it in a layperson's language. Cut the condescending faux intellectual bullshit and put your mouth where your brain claims to be.

Goes both ways, we don't reject science. We reject cargo cult science.

[GreenStormCloud]

221. Again all you can do is insult.

That is one of the reasons we are winning the battle for public opinion. When we point out the errors you claim that we, and therefore the public, are too stupid to understand. You further err in believing that we who post on the pro-gun side are uneducated.

[SteveM]

253. Then there is this study by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review. No study was excluded because of limitations in design or execution. Information on violent outcomes was available in 48 studies, and the remaining three studies, which provided information on counts or proportions of regulated firearms used in crime, were used as supplementary evidence. Several studies examined more than one type of firearm law."

(and)

"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons."

Reading this executive summary, you will find that concealed-carry (either "shall" or "may") was not linked to reduction in violent crime rates, a position consistent with most of the pro-2A posters here, straw from anti-2A notwithstanding.

[iverglas]

267. oh, lord, whacking moles again

Reading this executive summary, you will find that concealed-carry (either "shall" or "may") was not linked to reduction in violent crime rates, a position consistent with most of the pro-2A posters here, straw from anti-2A notwithstanding.

No, you will NOT find any such thing.

You will find exactly what you quoted:

"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws for the following reasons."


There was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE because the EVIDENCE WAS NOT COLLECTED.

Not insufficient evidence of effectiveness.

Insufficient evidence TO DETERMINE effectiveness.


Reading this executive summary, you will find that concealed-carry (either "shall" or "may") was not linked to reduction in violent crime rates, a position consistent with most of the pro-2A posters here, straw from anti-2A notwithstanding.

No, you will NOT find any such thing. You will find that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to determine whether there was a link.



http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

"The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)"



The meaning of this was explained over and over and over by our resident moderator at the time -- a statistician by profession.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=118586&mesg_id=118697


you never know, my own explanation may help someone:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=96095&mesg_id=96167

[gejohnston]

202. no they generally are not

and certainly not dumb. Well maybe. The ones to take grant money from the Kochs while doing climate research are. The ones taking money from the Joyce Foundation, same thing.
So why are these studies almost always in health journals and not in law, sociology, or criminology reviews?

[Euromutt]

305. Are you able to make an argument without resorting to ad hominems?

Once again, your posts are long on unsupported assertion, condescension and (perhaps unwitting) question-begging, and short on actual evidence and effort to actually understand what your interlocutor is saying. What your argument boils down to is that certain methods of statistical analysis are well established in medical/public health research, therefore a) they are dependable techniques, and b) they can be applied equally well to more sociological topics, like the connection between firearm possession and suffering a gunshot wound. However, those are precisely part of the question under discussion.

As I have done earlier, I refer to the article "Myths of Murder and Multiple Regression" by Rutgers sociologist Ted Goertzel. He is extremely critical of econometric modeling in general, and concludes:

The acid test in statistical modeling is prediction. Prediction does not have to be perfect. If a model can predict significantly better than random guessing, it is useful. <...> Unfortunately, researchers who use econometric techniques to evaluate social policies very seldom subject their models to predictive tests. Their excuse is that it takes too long for the outcomes to be known. You don't get new data on poverty, abortion or homicide every few minutes as you do with stock prices. But researchers can do predictive testing in other ways. They can develop a model using data from one jurisdiction or time period, then use it to predict data from other times or places. But most researchers simply do not do this, or if they do the models fail and the results are never published.

The journals that publish econometric studies of public policy issues often do not require predictive testing, which shows that the editors and reviewers have low expectations for their fields. So researchers take data for a fixed period of time and keep fine tuning and adjusting their model it until they can "explain" trends that have already happened. There are always a number of ways to do this, and with modern computers it is not terribly hard to keep trying until you find something that fits. At that point, the researcher stops, writes up the findings, and sends the paper off for publication. Later, another researcher may adjust the model to obtain a different result. This fills the pages of scholarly journals, and everybody pretends not to notice that little or no progress is being made. But we are no closer to having a valid econometric model of murder rates today than we were when Isaac Ehrlich published the first model in 1975.

The scientific community does not have good procedures for acknowledging the failure of a widely used research method. Methods that are entrenched in graduate programs at leading universities and published in prestigious journals tend to be perpetuated. Many laymen assume that if a study has been published in a peer reviewed journal, it is valid. The cases we have examined show that this is not always the case. Peer review assures that established practices have been followed, but it is of little help when those practices themselves are faulty.

In 1991, David Freedman, a distinguished sociologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of textbooks on quantitative research methods, shook the foundations of regression modeling when he frankly stated "I do not think that regression can carry much of the burden in a causal argument. Nor do regression equations, by themselves, give much help in controlling for confounding variables" (Freedman, 1991: 292). Freedman's article provoked a number of strong reactions. Richard Berk (1991: 315) observed that Freedman's argument "will be very difficult for most quantitative sociologists to accept. It goes to the heart of their empirical enterprise and in so doing, puts entire professional careers in jeopardy."

Faced with critics who want some proof that they can predict trends, regression modelers often fall back on statistical one-upmanship. They make arguments so complex that only other highly trained regression analysts can understand, let alone refute, them. Often this technique works. Potential critics simply give up in frustration. The Philadelphia Inquirer's David Boldt (1999), after hearing John Lott speak on concealed weapons and homicide rates, and checking with other experts, lamented that "trying to sort out the academic arguments is almost a fool’s errand. You can drown in disputes over t-statistics, dummy variables and ‘Poisson’ vs. ‘least squares’ data analysis methods."

Boldt was correct to suspect that he was being lured into a fool’s mission. There are, in fact, no important findings in sociology or criminology that cannot be communicated to journalists and policy makers who lack graduate degrees in econometrics. It is time to admit that the emperor has no clothes. When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis.

(Emphases in original.)
I strongly urge you to read the whole article (which I mistakenly hoped you might have done when I linked to it previously), because if nothing else, it'll give you a better idea of the beef I have with regression models, namely that I'm far from convinced they work very well at all. Note in particular Freedman's point concerning regression equations failing to "give much help in controlling for confounding variables." It would certainly go some way to explaining John Ioaniddis' findings concerning the sheer number of published research papers that turn out to be dead ends; see "Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research", JAMA, 2005, and "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False", PLoS Medicine, 2005.

This is why I take issue with your tendency to answer criticisms simply by asserting, in so many words, "that's standard and almost universally accepted practice, and if you take issue with the results, that's just because you're too ignorant and/or stupid to understand how it works." You're doing a pretty good job of emulating the response of "statistical one-upmanship" described by Goertzel in the above quoted section. And frankly, for all your accusations of scientific illiteracy on the part of the pro-RKBA crowd, you give rather a lot of evidence that your own familiarity with the scientific method is too superficial to fully understand its limitations, particularly in your insistence that the fact that a study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal is evidence of its validity. I refer again to Ioannidis, as well as to the fact that in the past couple of months, studies that are obvious garbage have been published in Cancer (see here), the Annals of Internal Medicine (here), and the NEJM (here, and a couple from last year for good measure). But I guess it's easier to resort to ad hominems than to admit that the authority to which you appeal may not be entirely deserving of the trust you place in it.

[DanTex]

310. It becomes wearying...

...to repeatedly hear about how scientific evidence has been "debunked" on some random gun website by somebody with no scientific background. Really, it does.

If you read through that exchange with me and the other poster, you will find that the other poster was denying that odds ratios are the same either way, as I finally had to explain here. This is not some shady statistical gimmick, it is algebra. I wonder if you can bring yourself to acknowledge that I was in fact correct, or if now you consider math itself to be an arbitrary authority.

Anyway, I'll try and make up for it by giving a more detailed and less dismissive explanation of exactly what you fail to understand about regression models.

I can see that you like your Goertzel, and he does have some good points. But Branas was an observational study -- a case-control study -- and not an econometric model. The problem Goertzel is talking about, where you keep adjusting your model until it fits, is called "data dredging" or "data snooping". This is indeed a big problem in econometric settings. Of course, everyone has known about this for decades, and there is a literature about how to avoid it, how to validate models, etc. (though it's still a big problem despite these validation techniques). It's not like Goertzel invented this.

However, in an observational study setting like we are talking about, this data snooping problem is much smaller. Why? Because, generally, when designing the study the investigator will decide what data to collect and then how to analyze it. If the model doesn't fit (e.g. if you fail to get a statistically significant result), that's it. You don't go back and collect more data or fudge things around. You don't re-analyze the data using different assumptions. What you do is you write up the study showing that you did the experiment and you failed to find a significant result. There is much less tweaking of models to get them to fit versus what you would find if you, say, go mining for trends through demographic databases. And even if you don't intentionally go mining for trends, in econometric settings, the same data often gets used in multiple different analyses or "experiments", and this is one big contributor to data dredging.

More generally, "regression" simply refers to the statistical practice of fitting a statistical model to data: inferring information about the relationships between observable variables. Econometric models are only one application of regression. Medical studies are another. But, basically, anywhere that data is involved, you will find regressions, of some form or another. Regression models are used in all kinds of scientific applications, from chemistry and physics, to sociology, economics, finance, climate science, everywhere. That's why having beef with "regression models" is a bit silly. The question is, what makes some regression models more credible than others.

And by the way, data dredging is not the only problem that arises when fitting regression models, and there are valid criticisms you could have given of the statistical methodology in the Branas paper. But the data dredging problem described by Goertzel isn't one of them.

OK, I hope that was useful. Regarding the usual "peer review is not perfect" and "public health people don't get it", I hope that at some point you will move past these silly catch-all critiques to the point where you can find some cogent and specifically relevant discussion points.

[Euromutt]

312. I'll "move past" my "silly critiques" when you stop trying to use peer review as a trump card

It's equally wearying to hear you going on as if not having certain credentials ipso facto means one's critical thinking abilities are non-existent, not to mention slapping down the "this was published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal" is if that alone is evidence of a study's validity. Most stuff that gets published in journals ultimately turns out to be wrong. That's not an indictment of the scientific method, because it's generally other scientists who conclude that they can't replicate the findings. Nor is it an indictment of peer review, because peer review isn't supposed to establish the veracity of a study's findings, but to filter out stuff that displays obvious flaws in its methodology or is otherwise plain garbage. And even if peer review doesn't always succeed in doing so, it doesn't really matter, because the real review of a study comes after publication, when other scientists read it and say "huh, that's interesting; let's see if those results can be replicated" (preferably using a more rigorous methodology). But that means that passing peer review may be a necessary condition of a study's validity, but it is not a sufficient condition; the sufficient condition is replication of the results by other researchers.

And yes, I'm aware the Branas study was a case-control study, but do you seriously want to tell me there was no application of econometrics involved in deciding how to compensate for the confounding factors between the study population and the control group? I mean, Branas cum suis picked just about the worst way to come up with a control group imaginable, namely randomly calling land lines in Philadelphia when the study population showed marked tendencies to be the kind of population that is least likely to possess a land line. That means you're going to have to do a metric assload of "controlling for confounding factors" and there's no way you can know how to start going about that until the data has been gathered and certain trends start to emerge. There's no way you can incorporate that into the study in the design stage, because at that stage, you do not yet know what the numbers are going to be, and thus how they are going to have to be crunched. Even accepting that "anywhere that data is involved, you will find regressions," it strikes me, as an admitted layman (with some college-level statistics classes), that "controlling" for a confounding factor after the fact will produce a result that isles reliable than if you'd eliminated that variable in the selection of your control group. I mean, it can't possibly be a novel idea that you should seek to make your control group resemble the study group in as many ways as possible apart from the variable you want to measure, yes?

And then the point remains that Branas et al. acknowledge in the text (but not in the abstract or the press release) that they "did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault." The whole claim of "carrying a gun makes you 4.5 times as likely to get shot" rather falls apart when it turns out the researchers didn't account for the possibility that individuals who considered themselves at an increased risk of being shot (due to being engaged in criminal enterprise etc.) are more likely to carry (almost certainly illegally) as a result.

[DanTex]

314. Yes, I seriously want to tell you that Goertzel's critique is not applicable to this type of study.

It's not a coincidence that Goertzel specifically talks about econometric analysis of demographic data, where (some) people keep looking for trends and tweaking models until they work out like they want, and not an observational study like this where the data is collected for one-time analysis.

That means you're going to have to do a metric assload of "controlling for confounding factors" and there's no way you can know how to start going about that until the data has been gathered and certain trends start to emerge. There's no way you can incorporate that into the study in the design stage, because at that stage, you do not yet know what the numbers are going to be, and thus how they are going to have to be crunched.

This is totally wrong. Go ask someone else who knows what they are talking about if you don't trust me. Yes, you definitely can know exactly how you are going to control for confounding factors before looking at the data. And no, you don't look at the data until "trends start to emerge" before deciding how to crunch then numbers. It's the opposite. You decide how to crunch the numbers first. Before looking at the data, you decide, "OK, we're going to measure these variables, then do this kind of regression, and then do this kind of test." After that, you let the data do the talking.

as an admitted layman (with some college-level statistics classes), that "controlling" for a confounding factor after the fact will produce a result that isles reliable than if you'd eliminated that variable in the selection of your control group. I mean, it can't possibly be a novel idea that you should seek to make your control group resemble the study group in as many ways as possible apart from the variable you want to measure, yes?

You can't just "make your control group resemble the study group", because the control group needs to be based on random sampling, otherwise the methodology doesn't work out. So you have to be really careful when you start messing with the control group to get the demographics you want. Random phone selection, while not perfect, is an established method of selecting a random sample from the population. It has its problems, which is why results need to be adjusted for other relevant demographic factors, as they are here.

Also, if you actually did "make your control group resemble the study group" by some sophisticated sampling scheme, it turns out that, mathematically, you would find yourself solving equations very similar to those that you would use for a multivariate regression. This is because this sampling scheme would have to be weighted, and to calculate these weights, you'd have to use multivariate statistical techniques. And if you run all the equations through, you'll find that in the end, you're doing almost the same calculations that you would have done if you had just gone ahead with the multivariate regression. And if you look even more carefully, you'll then realize that, for reasons too technical to get into, actually just doing the multivariate analysis directly is a superior and more accurate methodology, despite maybe seeming a bit spooky if you don't know how it works.

Anyway, you are again falling into the trap of "I don't really understand this stuff, but it seems obvious to me...". You are asking some reasonable questions (e.g. why not adjust for confounding during sampling of controls rather than in the regression), but it would be better if you made more of an effort to try to understand the reasons behind methodological choices, rather than continually insisting that it is the scientists rather than you who are confused, and that you have cleverly found a glaring flaw in the methodology.

[TPaine7]

242. You appear to be making unwarranted assumptions.

Interestingly, a recent study of gun violence victims in the same city of Philadelphia found that carrying a gun actually increases your chance of being shot. This incident helps illustrates why.

I don't believe the study asserted causalty. Also, the results are unlikely to be relevant to well practiced, legally sanctioned concealed carriers.

[Euromutt]

299. Tell it to Arkan Yildiz, Theo Kuijpers, Cees Lieftink, Asif Bashir, Mani Mohan, Youssef Barakat...

Who, you may ask? They're all people who lived in two of those other first-world nations in which nobody gets shot during robberies. Except they were. The only reason I can't cite any names from such incidents in France and Germany is that the news media in those countries don't seem to release the names of crime victims.

[iverglas]

311. would someone ask the mutt for me ...

Tell it to Arkan Yildiz, Theo Kuijpers, Cees Lieftink, Asif Bashir, Mani Mohan, Youssef Barakat ...

Tell WHAT to them?

The only reason I can't cite any names from such incidents in France and Germany is that the news media in those countries don't seem to release the names of crime victims.

Actually, it strikes me that the only reason you CAN cite any names at all is that the incidence of getting shot in robberies is so extremely low in some countries that the names of victims make the news.

Can someone actually name the hundreds of people shot in the course of robberies in the US last year?

:eyes:

Or, hm, in the last several years? A quick google tells me that you reported on the Arkan Yildiz incident at this site in 2009, it having happened in 2007. "Reaching" comes to mind.

[ileus]

296. His bad habit may have saved his life...

[Skip Intro]

298. It amazes me that some people would rather die than give up some bullshit pc fantasy. nt

[iverglas]

308. oh look

http://www.breezejmu.org/news/article_6a4ca756-e259-11e0-af1e-001a4bcf6878.html

Robert Eells, a student at Temple University and advocate for concealed carry, was shot in his stomach in an attempted robbery. One of his attempted robbers shot him in the stomach, but Eells shot back and hit the robber in the leg and torso.

Eells said the experience didn't change his views on concealed carry.

"As long as they are responsible and mature, concealed carry on campus shouldn't cause a problem," Eells said.

Quelle surprise.

A pre-existing gun militant.

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/09/16/temple-university-guns-town/

After the Eells incident, will more students soon be walking the streets packing more than just lunch? Eells supports responsible gun ownership and says, “not just any jock or burnout should be getting and carrying guns.” He believes you need to be both responsible and mentally and emotionally stable. ...

... Another issue: To protect yourself walking home after class, you’d actually need to bring the gun to class. Temple has a strict no-weapons policy for all campus areas, and Eells confirms that having a license to carry is no exception. But if students are genuinely afraid to travel to and from Temple without protection, they might consider carrying anyway if they don’t think they’ll get caught.

Eells says, “That’s one of the old clichés you hear a lot: concealed means concealed.” I thought about that for a second and then asked, “So people could have them, and we wouldn’t know?” Eells’s response? “People DO have them, and you don’t know.”

I wonder how he knows.

And I wonder what assurances he might think it reasonable to require to ensure that people carrying firearms around the world are "both responsible and mentally and emotionally stable". None, is my guess, any more than any other gun militant would even entertain the idea of requiring such assurances.

And now a word from the community:

http://temple-news.com/2011/09/12/community-member-advocates-unity/

... James Carr, 53-year-old North Philadelphia native, didn’t know much about the shooting, but said, “Them guys was just totally out looking for trouble. <They’re> 14 and 15 , <they were> out after curfew with a gun. It could have been me, it could have been you and it could have been anybody.”

... Carr believes that a misunderstanding exists between students and the community because of prejudiced attitudes.

“I’m quite sure when the school has orientation they advise students…who to fraternize with outside of campus and who not to fraternize with,” Carr said. “Everyone that lives in this community isn’t categorized as a bad person or a person that is not school oriented. They might not go to Temple, but they might go to another school. A lot of times that creates conflict.”

http://temple-news.com/2011/09/12/student-%E2%80%98orientation%E2%80%99-into-philadelphia-unrealistic/

... Yet, the influx of rural and even out-of-state students has grown to such a large percentage that urban schools throughout the city have struggled during the past 20 years to maintain a welcoming, yet realistic model of assimilation for those new to Philadelphia.

... However, when price is removed from the equation, the culture-less refugee camp surrounding Temple is a terrible substitute for a neighborhood, even though ex-dormers are dragged through each tier of the residential pyramid.

Meanwhile, Temple perpetuates this unrealistic model by further squeezing its growing residential body into this 8-foot by 8-foot block area, to the detriment of both long-time neighborhood residents and students.

The Sept. 5 shooting between Temple student Robert Eells, 21, and a 15-year old boy is continual evidence of Temple’s unrealistic demands on a neighborhood battered by collegiate congestion. Temple is not only unable to keep up with the housing demands of its students, but has created a Philadelphian purgatory, where culture cannot thrive.

... After this most recent transgression, it’s clear that the tension in Temple’s surrounding community must be resolved. I’m not talking about community relations and flowery rhetoric. I’m talking about college students saturating an area that used to have some semblance of unity.

Complexity.

The very presence of the students in the neighbourhood in question is a factor in the social deterioration of the neighbourhood. Blame the students? Nope. Understand the dynamics and problems and look for solutions.

I wonder how the community really feels about having pistol-packing outsiders move in ...

[gejohnston]

309. no surprise

that he would be a gun rights activist. He lives there, it is his neighborhood too.

[ileus]

313. Kind of silly not to advocate safety devices IMHO.

and since he's become a victim I believe he's an even greater influence in the promotion of concealed carry safety equipment.