Conquer Club

Sackett58 wrote:You don't think that the hard core criminal wouldn't love to find out where he could steal firearms.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

Phatscotty wrote:

CreepersWiener wrote:

This is great! We can go disarm all of these people now!

Why stop there, just go the next step and force all law abiding gun owning citizens to wear yellow stars on their coats.

see how ya are?

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

I never said I want to get rid of all guns.

But look at the story you linked in the other thread. Because the guy had a gun in his home, he ended up getting shot, and one of the robbers died. If he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have taken some jewelry and electronics and left, with no one seriously injured or dead. Yes, bad things happen in this world; but guns aggravate the problem in almost all circumstances, rather than being a successful deterrent.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Of course, the only good thing is that maybe the thieves will be smart enough to look at that map and only go after people who don't have guns.

For those of us who prefer not to own a gun, I do not see this as a good thing.

So you don't like what could happen, yet you want to get rid of ALL guns so that the same thing can happen to other people as well?

I never said I want to get rid of all guns.

But look at the story you linked in the other thread. Because the guy had a gun in his home, he ended up getting shot, and one of the robbers died. If he didn't have a gun, they most likely would have taken some jewelry and electronics and left, with no one seriously injured or dead. Yes, bad things happen in this world; but guns aggravate the problem in almost all circumstances, rather than being a successful deterrent.

You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

Night Strike wrote:You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

notyou2 wrote:So you are saying that a gun gives you a false sense of security as well as taking the situation with most likely a habitual criminal to another level?

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:You would rather hope that an intruder won't physically harm you than have a method of self-protection at your disposal? What happens if he decides to take those things and that he doesn't want to leave a witness?

I would absolutely rather hope than an intruder won't physically harm me. According to a 2009 study by UPenn, people who were in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were nearly five times more likely to be shot than people without a gun.

- sample set is too small

- sample distribution is too small

- Philadelphia has an atypical crime rate (http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_p ... te-matter/)
- Philadelphia is an urban area; sample distribution limits can't account for different gun ownership and use trends in rural and suburban areas
- Philadelphia is a Northeastern city; sample distribution limits can't account for different firearms use cultures in western states

Hawaii - 1.8
Idaho - 1.5
Iowa - 1.3
Maine - 2.0
Minnesota - 1.5
New Hampshire - 0.9
North Dakota - 2.0
Oregon - 2.3
Utah - 1.4
Vermont - 1.3
Wyoming - 2.0

District of Columbia - 24.2
New Mexico- 10.0
Louisiana - 12.3
Illinois - 8.4
Alabama - 7.1
Maryland - 7.7

Metsfanmax wrote:

notyou2 wrote:So you are saying that a gun gives you a false sense of security as well as taking the situation with most likely a habitual criminal to another level?

That is my conclusion from this study, yes. That being said, there are obviously exceptions to this general rule. If you are a weapons expert or have advanced combat training, then you are probably able to handle your gun for self-defense with much more ability than the average citizen.

saxitoxin wrote:I reject the results of this study for 3 reasons:

1- the study was limited to 677 people

- sample set is too small

2- the study was limited to residents of Philadelphia

- sample distribution is too small

- Philadelphia has an atypical crime rate (http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_p ... te-matter/)
- Philadelphia is an urban area; sample distribution limits can't account for different gun ownership and use trends in rural and suburban areas
- Philadelphia is a Northeastern city; sample distribution limits can't account for different firearms use cultures in western states

3 - most importantly - the study did not attempt to explain a difference in injury rates between persons lawfully possessing a firearm and those unlawfully possessing one (most likely a person unlawfully possessing a firearm will inherently be at greater risk of violent assault than a person lawfully possessing one or a person possessing no firearm at all; persons who have access to black market sources for firearms, logically, are moving in a different and more dangerous segment of society than the average person)

HapSmo19 wrote:What's the the deal with you?
What business is it of yours and why do you care whether or not a person has advanced combat training while defending themselves in their own home?

Metsfanmax wrote:These aren't reasons to reject the study, they're just reasons to not be confident in the specific result unless you live in Philadelphia.

Metsfanmax wrote:The 4.5 times more likely result was given after already having taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence. It does not seem to have taken into account the difference between legal and illegally owned guns, but I would argue that this is subsumed in the general "high-risk" category they describe in the paper.

Metsfanmax wrote:

HapSmo19 wrote:What's the the deal with you?
What business is it of yours and why do you care whether or not a person has advanced combat training while defending themselves in their own home?

...I would like fewer people to die in gun-related violence.

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:These aren't reasons to reject the study, they're just reasons to not be confident in the specific result unless you live in Philadelphia.

1. It's reason to reject the conclusion of the study, which states "the probability of success may be low" without the necessary qualification "in the singularly most crime-ridden city in the United States."

Metsfanmax wrote:The 4.5 times more likely result was given after already having taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence. It does not seem to have taken into account the difference between legal and illegally owned guns, but I would argue that this is subsumed in the general "high-risk" category they describe in the paper.

2. I can't comment on this as I don't have access to the full paper and "taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence" isn't explained - or as far as I can tell, even contained - in the abstract.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:These aren't reasons to reject the study, they're just reasons to not be confident in the specific result unless you live in Philadelphia.

1. It's reason to reject the conclusion of the study, which states "the probability of success may be low" without the necessary qualification "in the singularly most crime-ridden city in the United States."

That fact doesn't substantially affect the result. The question being asked was not "how likely are you to get shot when possessing a gun," but rather "how much more likely are you to get shot when possessing a gun." Only the former depends on the absolute crime rate.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The 4.5 times more likely result was given after already having taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence. It does not seem to have taken into account the difference between legal and illegally owned guns, but I would argue that this is subsumed in the general "high-risk" category they describe in the paper.

2. I can't comment on this as I don't have access to the full paper and "taken into account general characteristics that made a person at higher risk to be involved in gun violence" isn't explained - or as far as I can tell, even contained - in the abstract.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pd ... 008.143099

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.

saxitoxin wrote:As I stated, it doesn't affect the data result, it affects the conclusion. The conclusion being "the probability of success may be low" with the implication of the discussion being this conclusion is valid outside the city limits of Philadelphia. Unless Philadelphia represents the demographic mean of all U.S. urban, suburban and rural areas - which it does not in at least one category (absolute crime rate), and most likely in many others as well - the study is of marginal value. This point is aside, however, from the more important fact that ...

This confirms the suspicion I originally stated -

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.

next study

U Penn study wrote:Finally, as this was a case–control study, we had the advantage of being able to statistically adjust for numerous confounders of the relationship between gun possession and gun assault. These confounders included important individual-level factors that did not change with time such as having a high-risk occupation, limited education, or an arrest record. Other confounders that we included were situational factors that could have influenced the relationship under study: substance abuse, being outside, having others present, and being in neighborhood surroundings that were impoverished or busy with illicit drug trafficking. Although these situational confounders were potentially short-lived (e.g., a participant may have metabolized the drugs or alcohol they consumed, moved to another location, or left
the company of others) this was less important given the incidence–density sampling and the fact that case and control participants were essentially matched on time.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:As I stated, it doesn't affect the data result, it affects the conclusion. The conclusion being "the probability of success may be low" with the implication of the discussion being this conclusion is valid outside the city limits of Philadelphia. Unless Philadelphia represents the demographic mean of all U.S. urban, suburban and rural areas - which it does not in at least one category (absolute crime rate), and most likely in many others as well - the study is of marginal value. This point is aside, however, from the more important fact that ...

I agree with this general conclusion about the limited potential applications of the study (and so do the authors). It's still a strong argument to inform government policy in urban areas.

This confirms the suspicion I originally stated -

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.

next study

As I stated, the overrepresentation of these groups was accounted for and weighted appropriately when generating the results. They were fairly vague on the statistical method used to weight these factors, however.

U Penn study wrote:Finally, as this was a case–control study, we had the advantage of being able to statistically adjust for numerous confounders of the relationship between gun possession and gun assault. These confounders included important individual-level factors that did not change with time such as having a high-risk occupation, limited education, or an arrest record. Other confounders that we included were situational factors that could have influenced the relationship under study: substance abuse, being outside, having others present, and being in neighborhood surroundings that were impoverished or busy with illicit drug trafficking. Although these situational confounders were potentially short-lived (e.g., a participant may have metabolized the drugs or alcohol they consumed, moved to another location, or left
the company of others) this was less important given the incidence–density sampling and the fact that case and control participants were essentially matched on time.

saxitoxin wrote:In any case, MfM - you said you do not want to ban firearms. What level of regulation would you want?

For instance, in Canada you need to take an 8-hour safety class to get a rifle or a shotgun, and an extra 4-hour safety class to get a handgun (Canada has a low violent crime rate). In the UK almost all firearms other than bolt-action long guns are prohibited, and even those are heavily regulated (UK has a high violent crime rate). Which of those two regulatory regimes would you find acceptable? Or neither?

In retaliation against the New York newspaper — the Journal News — that published the addresses of those pistol permit holders in two of the state’s counties, a blogger has created a map pinpointing the addresses of the newspaper’s employees.

Mimicking the title of the Journal News’ original article, Robert Cox with “Talk of the Sound” headlined his post: Map: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?
Robert Cox With Talk of the Sound Creates Map of Journal News Employees in Retaliation to Gun Permit Map

He wrote:

The map indicates the addresses of all Journal News Employees in the New York Tri-State area. Each dot represents an individual Journal News employee — a reporter, editor or staffer. The data does not include freelancers — reporters or photographers — which can be hired without being an employee. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location is a responsible reporter or editor, just that they are a reporter or editor.

[...]

To create the map, Talk of the Sound submitted Google searches for the names and addresses of all Journal News employees in the New York Tri-State area. By state law, the information is public record.

Cox went onto explain that putting together the map has been a crowd-sourced effort between other bloggers and readers. He wrote the map will be updated as more information continues to become available.

He also noted that since the publication has downsized in recent years, some of the names of employees might not be current. So far, dozens of names and addresses have been collected and published.

See the full-size map here.

Another blogger has been curating the names and addresses of News Journal employees as well (via Beta Beat). Christopher Fountain, a Greenwich, Conn., real estate agent on his blog For What It’s Worth, generally composes posts about real estate and home improvement, has been voicing his thoughts on the News Journal’s publishing of gun owner addresses and also recently linked Cox’s interactive map of employee addresses.

Night Strike wrote:

In retaliation against the New York newspaper — the Journal News — that published the addresses of those pistol permit holders in two of the state’s counties, a blogger has created a map pinpointing the addresses of the newspaper’s employees.

Mimicking the title of the Journal News’ original article, Robert Cox with “Talk of the Sound” headlined his post: Map: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?
Robert Cox With Talk of the Sound Creates Map of Journal News Employees in Retaliation to Gun Permit Map

He wrote:

The map indicates the addresses of all Journal News Employees in the New York Tri-State area. Each dot represents an individual Journal News employee — a reporter, editor or staffer. The data does not include freelancers — reporters or photographers — which can be hired without being an employee. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location is a responsible reporter or editor, just that they are a reporter or editor.

[...]

To create the map, Talk of the Sound submitted Google searches for the names and addresses of all Journal News employees in the New York Tri-State area. By state law, the information is public record.

Cox went onto explain that putting together the map has been a crowd-sourced effort between other bloggers and readers. He wrote the map will be updated as more information continues to become available.

He also noted that since the publication has downsized in recent years, some of the names of employees might not be current. So far, dozens of names and addresses have been collected and published.

See the full-size map here.

Another blogger has been curating the names and addresses of News Journal employees as well (via Beta Beat). Christopher Fountain, a Greenwich, Conn., real estate agent on his blog For What It’s Worth, generally composes posts about real estate and home improvement, has been voicing his thoughts on the News Journal’s publishing of gun owner addresses and also recently linked Cox’s interactive map of employee addresses.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blogger-retaliates-against-paper-that-published-gun-owner-addresses-by-creating-interactive-map-of-its-employees/