Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)118. So what's the answer? You deny science across the board?
Quoting a Hemenway study makes you about as credible as if you had quoted something by LaPierre.
Except that LaPierre is a right-wing propagandist, whereas Hemenway is a Harvard professor with an extensive publication record. Of course this means nothing to the head-in-the-sand people like you who essentially don't believe in science, but in the reality based community, there's a big difference.
That's right, you posted a study about the risk of having a gun inside the home and the study uses information from the NCVS that only covers crimes that happened outside of the home.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The Hemenway study is a survey, and as such it uses a lot of different sources of information and draws from a lot of different studies. Without being specific, I have no idea which part of the study.
However, I don't know where you get the idea that NCVS only covers crimes that happened outside the home. For example, NCVS estimates the number of burglaries, which occur inside the home. So that's a decent indication that you are pretty clueless.
The author of that study states several times that the data on DGU is extremely unreliable yet somehow is able to state with certainty that one is X-times more likely to be injured in an assault or use it for suicide than use it for self-defense.
First of all, the author doesn't state anything with certainty. In fact, if you knew anything about statistical studies, you would know that they only provide estimates, with confidence intervals, etc. It's inherently probabilistic. Are you really this ignorant that you didn't even know that? I mean, this is really basic stuff.
Beyond that, estimates of the number of DGUs and estimates of the risk vs protective benefits are arrived at using entirely different means. The DGUs are typically estimated using surveys, while most of the risk/benefit analyses are based on case-control studies. Which means that the fact that survey estimates of DGUs are unreliable doesn't mean that the case-control studies are unreliable. Still with me?
No fucking way anyone could be that clueless yet Dr. Hemenway basically stated that his built his framework on a pile of crap data. Whole thing reeks of cherry picking and you bought in to it like you thought it was a winning lottery ticket. Next time you go harping on the validity of "peer-review" and how those of us on the pro-rights side lack scientific understanding it would behoove you to at least attain some basic level reading comprehension and actually apply it.
Incoherent blather. At least before you were trying to make a cogent argument, despite failing miserably.
So far, you are doing worse than the average clueless gun fanatic. And I'm speaking from experience -- I've heard a lot of clueless gun fanatics say a lot of dumb things. But you are more entertaining than average! Congrats!
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
198 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Ohio: Buckeyes for Concealed Carry President Uses Handgun to Defend Family [View all]
rDigital
Sep 2012
OP
This sounds like a made up story- why would a white man call another white man "white honky"?
kimbutgar
Sep 2012
#1
Do you have another source for this besides "Students for Concealed Carry - Ohio"?
SecularMotion
Sep 2012
#3
I'm sure there's a police report. We can make that your responsibility to go and fetch it.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#8
Funny how he'll post anti gun articles from the VPC, Huffington Post, or the Brady org.
glacierbay
Sep 2012
#15
Make sure you keep all these posts in mind the next time you consider calling a gun owner...
Clames
Sep 2012
#22
The story sounds suspicious, not the gun owner. I too own a handgun, but the story sounds made up.
bluecoat_fan
Sep 2012
#83
It seems to me that this is the first statistical study you have ever seen in your life.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#43
LOL. With the way you take things out of context, you ought to work for the Romney campaign.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#86
Why, are you his recruiter? No thanks I'll stick with Obama, but my condolences on your desperate,
TPaine7
Sep 2012
#88
Maybe Ron Paul is more your speed -- one of those "it's unconstitutional" wackos you seem to like.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#89
Until you showed up to try and settle some old scores, this was, in fact, a discussion about a
DanTex
Sep 2012
#92
Let me guess, the Brady campaign is the only sufficiently unbiased source of information
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#33
If you must ignore the FBI's studies on this then I think we have nothing to discuss
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#53
Excellent. Do you acknowledge that while it was dropping total guns owned
4th law of robotics
Sep 2012
#59
LOL. Ignoring me again. I guess when you have no evidence on your side, that's the only play!
DanTex
Sep 2012
#64
Yeah, that guy tends to make a lot of noise and then hide when evidence is presented.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#128
LOL. The "creationist" charge by the guy who's intent on ignoring the scientific evidence.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#131
Still dodging. Whatever you do, make sure you don't try and make a substantive point!
DanTex
Sep 2012
#180
Still dodging! Proxy variables, peer reviewed studies. Any of that ring a bell?
DanTex
Sep 2012
#188
"Peer Reviewed" garbage is still garbage. Everyone has an axe to grind, especially those in your
rDigital
Sep 2012
#84
I deny your brand of opinion-based science. I quite enjoy the fact-based science though.
Clames
Sep 2012
#119
Those with a fear of instruments have more of a theological view on gun control than logical.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#122
Funny you bring up "theological view" when you are the one denying the empirical evidence.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#124
Well that's just like your opinion, man. You're peer-reviewed tripe is "peer reviewed" by people
rDigital
Sep 2012
#126
So many characters to say so little. Ignore the inconvenient truths, keep your head in the sand.
rDigital
Sep 2012
#144
Because keeping people from killing themselves is really a possibility and by extension a valid
rDigital
Sep 2012
#146
I'm not arguing with the numbers of that site. I'm saying that suicide isn't a valid gun control
rDigital
Sep 2012
#148
Yes, and the assault rates are similar to ours. Not nearly as far out of line as homicide.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#190
Don't know about gun robberies in Canada. I've seen 40% for the percent of Canada's murders by gun
DanTex
Sep 2012
#195
I don't know if it actually made the news. The link in the OP is to Buckeyes for Concealed Carry.
DanTex
Sep 2012
#70
They are at the link in the OP. I include them as they answer questions raised on this thread:
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2012
#103