Should We Publish Names And Addresses of Gun Owners?

[saxitoxin]

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."

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.

[HapSmo19]

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.

You may not have heard, but, advanced combat training is kind of about the complete opposite of that.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

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

[saxitoxin]

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.

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 ...

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

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.

You can't do a study of gang-on-gang violence and then imply the mortality figures for street soldiers in a turf war between the Latin Kings and the Surenos will also be representative for a mercantile exchange broker who has a 9MM in his house safe.

next study

[Metsfanmax]

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.

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]

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.

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.

They only adjusted confounders to make their 667 subject sample set numerically, not behaviorally, representative of the Philadelphia population as a whole. Of their sample set, 53% had prior arrest records (this fact alone should set off some alarm bells). If they published the raw data for the 47% of their small sample set without arrest records I'd be curious about their results. Right now, however, all the study tells us is that violent criminals are more likely to suffer violent fates.

[saxitoxin]

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?

[Metsfanmax]

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?

I would tentatively say that general training requirements are a good thing, and I would definitely say that mandatory gun locker requirements are a good thing. But I just think it's too complex for me to figure out what the best approach is. What I hope will happen is that we actually dedicate more funding to research on the subject. When the best study we have is that one I posted, you know work needs to be done.

[Night Strike]

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/

[Symmetry]

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/

Wow, a shitty thing to do in the first place, but talk about retaliation. More fear for all involved. Are these bloggers trying to show that publishing this kind of information is legal? Or that if you post this kind of information, there will be threatening repercussions?

Probably a good idea not to read TheBlaze, Glenn Beck is still a recipe for paranoia. I could cry.

[Phatscotty]

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?

Will the stars say deputy sheriff?

or maybe this...

[Symmetry]

...,

[saxitoxin]

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?

Will the stars say deputy sheriff?

or maybe this...

Who woulda thought that one day this would be as much a tale of tragedy and redemption as The Diary of Anne Frank?

[Phatscotty]

For f*ck's sake Scotty, I don't know what's more disgusting, your increasingly ignorant and shit-fueled attempts to portray the Holocaust as something that could have just been prevented by the 2nd Amendment, or your remarkably nasty trolling of a genocide, with pictures, underlined by your partying sig.


I think this might be the point where I think you went beyond being a nasty troll, to simply being a shitty person.

That's what happened after the guns were taken away from them. When you are disarmed and helpless, all kinds of things start to become acceptable, since there is nothing you can do about it anyways....

you can keep throwing cheap shots, I will just keep calling them cheap

[Phatscotty]

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?

Will the stars say deputy sheriff?

or maybe this...

Who woulda thought that one day this would be as much a tale of tragedy and redemption as The Diary of Anne Frank?

It's about targeting a certain kind of people, invading their privacy, discrimination, making sure everybody knows what kind of person they are and where they can be found...