Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 12:43 AM
356 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, PaulK (3 members, 353 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,584 Year: 21,190/21,208 Month: 1,623/2,326 Week: 78/881 Day: 0/78 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
327328
329
330331
...
336Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 4921 of 5038 (782382)
04-22-2016 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 4918 by Theodoric
04-22-2016 1:52 PM


Re: New study debunks NRA arguments
Theodoric writes:

The NRA argument is that there are millions of examples that good guys with guns stop bad guys with a gun. This study shows that there are not millions of examples.

Right - that's a good point. The NRA and gun nut response is that such cases usually go unreported, but that's inconsistent with the study's data (indeed, with any study's data). The study said that there were 37 times more criminal homicides than justifiable homicides, and since around 1/3 of Americans own guns, if a successful defense against armed criminals were something that possession of a defensive weapon actually made possible then it would not be 37 times more, but something much less, something more on the order of 3 times more (i.e., invert the value of 1/3 that represents the number of Americans with guns). And if having a defensive weapon provided a significant advantage then it should be even less than 3 times more, proving that possession of a defensive weapon provided people with an advantage over criminals. But it's not and it doesn't.

Not only that, it's nowhere close to 3 times. It's 37 times, more than an order of magnitude larger. There's no evidence in that study, or any study, of the advantages of defensive gun possession.

Did we already note this study from last year: The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 20072011. It concludes:

  • "Self-defense gun use occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes"
  • It "is not associated with a reduced risk of victim injury"
  • That a gun provides no advantage over any other weapon when it comes to protecting property.

So that baseball bat in the closet? Apparently just as effective as a gun, and I'm willing to bet that no 3-year old has ever found a baseball bat and killed himself with it.

And this study didn't even consider the increased danger a gun in the home represents.

While looking up that study I also came across this article: The Myth of Defensive Gun Use. Interesting excerpts:

quote:
What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership.
...
In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up...accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.
...
Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Klecks surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police.
...
For example, the claim that millions every year shoot their guns in self-defense has led some to posit that there are more defensive gun uses than criminal uses. This assertion is inexplicablenot backed by any substantive evidence. We have yet to find a single study examining the question that does not show that criminal uses far outweigh defensive uses.
...
And indeed, comparing NCVS results to NCVS results yields a very different picturethat more than 9 times as many people are victimized by guns than protected by them.
...
A Harvard study [showed] that 51 percent of defensive gun uses in a large survey were illegal according to a panel of 5 judges.
...
But the evidence clearly shows that our lax gun laws and increased gun ownership, spurred on by this myth, do not help good guys with guns defend themselves, their families or our society. Instead, they are aiding and abetting criminals by providing them with more guns, with 200,000 already stolen on an annual basis. And more guns means more homicides. More suicides. More dead men, women and children. Not fewer.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Added missing word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4918 by Theodoric, posted 04-22-2016 1:52 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11665
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 4922 of 5038 (782384)
04-22-2016 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 4920 by NoNukes
04-22-2016 3:09 PM


Re: New study debunks NRA arguments
Taking these numbers at face value still falls short of an argument in my opinion. Surely violent crimes include things like robberies, car jackings for example. What generally happens to people who don't have guns when they encounter such situations?

The 90,000 number seems to stand on its own merits. However the 160,000 number needs quite a bit of parcing out before we can see some kind of balance between the relative safety involved with having or not having a gun.

Yeah, "safer" is kind of a fluffy term. But I would consider being safe as not being robbed or car-jacked, even if it wouldn't end in bodily harm to myself.

So I don't really see the need to parse the 160,000. That's violent crime, that's not safe.

Or, we could just drop the whole "safer" thing.

About twice as many people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm than people who died from a firearm.

And that includes people who chose to shoot themselves with their gun, i.e. suicides.

It goes up to about five times as many people defending themselves against violent crime with a firearm than there were homicides with a firearm.

Guns are being used a lot more to defend people than they are to murder them, and that's a good thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4920 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2016 3:09 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4923 by Percy, posted 04-22-2016 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 4924 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2016 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 4926 by NoNukes, posted 04-22-2016 6:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4923 of 5038 (782389)
04-22-2016 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2016 3:28 PM


Re: New study debunks NRA arguments
Cat Sci writes:

Or, we could just drop the whole "safer" thing.

Instead of dropping "the whole 'safer' thing" maybe the gun lobby could allow the repeal of legislation that prevents the federal government from funding authoritative studies that could answer such questions once and for all.

But that's unlikely, so dropping the "safer" thing is probably more realistic.

About twice as many people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm than people who died from a firearm.

It would be helpful for people who don't recall the figures if you provided hard numbers. There are around 32,000 gun deaths annually from all causes. There are no generally agreed upon figures for the number of defensive firearm uses against violent crime, but even if there were, comparing it to total firearm deaths doesn't seem particularly meaningful. What do you think it indicates?

As the study mentioned earlier stated (see The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 20072011), "Self-defense gun use occurs in fewer than 1% of contact crimes." If it takes 33% of Americans owning guns to cause a 1% defensive use rate, than if 100% of Americans owned guns the defensive use rate would rise to only 3%. So much for arming America to thwart crime. Even worse for that claim, defensive gun use doesn't reduce injury risk.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2016 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 4924 of 5038 (782390)
04-22-2016 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2016 3:28 PM


Re: New study debunks NRA arguments
About twice as many people defended themselves against violent crime with a firearm than people who died from a firearm.

Now try comparing people defending themselves from crime with a firearm against people perpetrating crime with a firearm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2016 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 4925 of 5038 (782393)
04-22-2016 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4907 by Percy
04-18-2016 7:07 PM


Re: Straggler wanted scientific studies link drugs to violence.
quote:

[Percy]
A "very large increase" and a "significant association" are not the same thing. The statistical correlation doesn't translate naturally into some magnitude of increase, I'm not sure myself how to interpret it.

"Mentally ill" people on the SSRI (anti-depressant) drugs compared to those same types off of them, based on studies, is associated with large percentages of higher numbers of suicides and acts of violence in the "on" group in study after study. You were referencing the Swedish study that was releases in September 2015.

I also referenced other studies. The Telegraph article should be the icing on the cake as it is broad in its coverage.

Lets put these gun death numbers into perspective.

quote:

[Dr. Peter C. Gotzsche, a physician specializing in internal medicine at Denmark's Nordic Cochrane Centre, alleged in the May 12, 2015 British Medical Journal:]

"Psychiatric drugs are responsible for the deaths of more than half a million people aged 65 and older each year in the Western world... Their benefits would need to be colossal to justify this, but they are minimal. ... Given their lack of benefit, I estimate we could stop almost all psychotropic drugs without causing harm ... This would lead to healthier and longer-lived populations."

http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2435


The BMJ requires a subscription. I found the quote here: http://www.wayneramsay.com/evil.htm

These deaths include all the "natural" deaths (not just ones from using a weapon) from chemically induced side-effects brought on by anti-psychotics (in addition to SSRIs which are anti-depressants).

I think the gun issue is a side issue (though it is more of a complete red herring and terrible distraction based on the present situation) when one studies the history of gun violence and then places the historical timeline alongside the scientific studies.

The mass shootings that have gained so much attention seemed to coincide with the psychiatric pill-pushing revolution, and infact the vast majority of shooters have had SSRIs in their system.

The whole of the gun issue focus seems to be based on looking at just a small part of the puzzle of various factors that make up the collective whole of all the respective violent fatal events.

The mounting scientific evidence backs up my conclusion more and more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 04-18-2016 7:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 4926 of 5038 (782396)
04-22-2016 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye
04-22-2016 3:28 PM


Re: New study debunks NRA arguments
So I don't really see the need to parse the 160,000. That's violent crime, that's not safe.

Violent crime does not mean death or even injury. It means there was a threat that such a thing might happen, but did not, and that a gun was involved. But many people get through those things without a gun. On the other hand, death means death.

What you are defending is that the mere fear that you might be exposed to a threat justifies the gun regardless of the 90,000 deaths. That a death for example, is equivalent or balanced by the fact that someone tried to strong arm you for you iPhone. I don't find such arguments the least bit persuasive. The value of a human life exceeds the value of your things, and violent crime encompasses lots of things and defending yourself with a gun includes situations where a life was taken needlessly.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4922 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2016 3:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 871
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 4927 of 5038 (782490)
04-24-2016 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 4907 by Percy
04-18-2016 7:07 PM


I found the Jan 27 2016 Britich Medical Journal text.
http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65

This is the study that the Telegraph referenced. Scientific American is covering it on their May 1 2016 issue.

quote:

Abstract

Objective To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Main outcome measures Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.

Data sources Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lillys website.

Eligibility criteria for study selection Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.

Data extraction and analysis Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Petos exact method (fixed effect model).

Results We included 70 trials (64 381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18 526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lillys website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete.

Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.



due to code issues I had to make an alteration (and it is difficult to explain my corrections as the code has messed that up too.

Then just below, in the introduction. It actually says ..."in children and adolescents (aged <18 years"

quote:

Introduction

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are some of the most commonly prescribed drugs.1 2 SSRI induced suicidality was first reported in 19903 but only became generally recognised after a BBC Panorama programme focused on it in 2002.4

A 2004 UK review showed a noticeable discrepancy between published and unpublished trials and increased suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents (aged 18 years),5 which resulted in serious warnings against these drugs being used in this age group.6 It is widely believed that the risk of suicide is not increased in adults, and support for this was provided by a Food and Drug Administration meta-analysis of about 100 000 patients.7 However, a large systematic review of published trials found an increase in suicide attempts with SSRI treatment,1 and another review using data submitted to the UKs Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) could not rule out an increased risk of suicidal behaviour during early treatment with these drugs.8

For aggressive behaviour (for example, hostility, assault) in general, reports are conflicting.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A UK review using MHRA data found an increase in hostility in children and adolescents,16 and an analysis of adverse events reported to the FDA showed that antidepressants were disproportionately involved in cases of violence, including murder.17 Many cases of aggressive behaviour have been reported,2 4 but, unlike with suicidality, little systematic research has been undertaken. Perpetrators of school shootings and similar events have often been reported to be users of antidepressants18 and the courts have in many cases found them not guilty as a result of drug induced insanity.4
....
04.↵ Gtzsche PC. Deadly psychiatry and organised denial.Peoples Press, 2015.
....
18.↵ SSRI stories. SSRI stories: antidepressant nightmares. 2013. http://ssristories.org/.

http://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i65


This is the Jan 2016 BMJ which covers Denmark work (I think). Different from the Sept 2016 Swedish study.

The larger body of adults were found "insignificant" in increased acts of violence in the (referenced by Percy) Swedish study (from Sept 2015) too but if you clip it down to those adults under 25 then the increases are very significant. Actually, Percy likes to point out that "significant associations" should not be equated to "increases". There was also some evidence for associations of increased violence in those older than 25 in the Swedish study. I suspect up till age 30 (or so) but I remember they were grouped into a larger age group than just 25-30 or 25-25. Something like 25-44 I think.

This is a developing issue but a lot of the evidence has been around for a long time. But Scientific American presents is a new evidence.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/...harm-of-antidepressants

quote:

Mental Health

The Hidden Harm of Antidepressants

An in-depth analysis of clinical trials reveals widespread underreporting of negative side effects, including suicide attempts and aggressive behavior

By Diana Kwon on February 3, 2016
Valo en espaol

....
Because many prior studies found increased suicidal ideation with antidepressant use, in 2004 the FDA gave these drugs a black box warninga label reserved for the most serious hazardsand the EMA issued similar alerts. There are no labels about risks for aggression, however. Although hints about hostile behavior existed in the past, including in published case studies, last weeks BMJ study was the first large-scale work to document an increase in aggressive behavior in children and adolescents. This is obviously important in the debate about school shootings in the States and in other places where the perpetrators are frequently taking antidepressants, Moncrieff says.


This is a longer article than the May 1 2016 article coming out. The link address url looks the same though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4907 by Percy, posted 04-18-2016 7:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 4928 of 5038 (782870)
04-29-2016 7:50 PM


This Year's 10000th Isolated Incident!
Gunman fatally shoots Pennsylvania churchgoer after fight over seat at Sunday service.

Guns and religion, what could possibly go wrong?


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4929 of 5038 (782958)
05-01-2016 11:29 AM


Successful Home Defense
He started crying like a little baby: 11-year-old brags about shooting suspected home invader

That's quite the headline. According to 11-year old Chris Gaither the intruder was also armed, so Chris grabbed a 9mm handgun and when the intruder fled with a laundry hamper Chris emptied his 12-round clip, hitting the intruder once in the leg.

I just can't tell you how much safer I feel knowing that somewhere in my neighborhood there might be another Chris Gaither just itching for an excuse to let loose with his 9mm.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4930 of 5038 (783083)
05-03-2016 8:39 AM


Concealed Carry Do-Gooder Gets Himself Killed
All it takes to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, right?

Or maybe all it takes to make a good guy do something stupid is to grant him delusions of power by giving him a gun. Concealed carry gun-wielder intervenes in domestic dispute and is shot dead. Read it and weep.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4931 of 5038 (783204)
05-04-2016 9:45 AM


Toddlers and Guns
From The Washington Post: Toddlers have shot at least 23 people this year

The headline says it all.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 4932 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2016 12:37 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 4932 of 5038 (783225)
05-04-2016 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 4931 by Percy
05-04-2016 9:45 AM


Re: Toddlers and Guns
Toddlers have shot at least 23 people this year

That map inside the article that indicates where the toddler shootings are concentrated is quite chilling. I suppose the response might be along the lines, what is a dead kid a week when 160,000 people defend themselves against a violent crime[1]?

[1]by whatever definition of 'defend' and 'violent crime' is necessary and whatever period is needed to create the statistic.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4931 by Percy, posted 05-04-2016 9:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 4933 of 5038 (784084)
05-11-2016 8:07 PM


Best Gun Safety Tip: Dump It
In today's news: Detroit girl, 5, shoots herself with gun found under pillow. From the article:

quote:
The handgun was under a pillow in her grandmother's Detroit bedroom when the 5-year-old girl came upon it, police said Wednesday.

The girl, who was with two younger children about midnight, was playing with the weapon when it discharged, police said. She was fatally wounded, the latest casualty from shootings by children across the nation.
...
Police Cmdr. Jacqueline Pritchett told the Detroit News that the precinct is working with residents on gun safety.


Right. The only safe gun is one that's not there.

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15682
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4934 of 5038 (784735)
05-22-2016 9:07 AM


After Death of 5-year Old Girl, Family Left Defenseless
From NBC News: Louisiana Girl, 5, Fatally Shoots Self While Playing With Gun

quote:
Detectives said the gun was unsecured, the sheriff's office said.

Well of course it was unsecured. What good is a gun for home defense if it's secured? The father's .45 caliber gun had been left on a table where anyone could grab it at a second's notice, standard practice for effective home defense.

quote:
Baker, the sheriff's lieutenant, told the station, "Safety, everything is safety. If you're the owner of a weapon, buy a safe box, a gun safe. That's the way it is. Teach your kids. Teach your family about it."

Doesn't the sheriff's office know anything? That family was not safe until the father brought home a gun, and now this unpreventable tragedy has probably caused the sheriff's office to remove the gun from the home, leaving the family defenseless again.

There were three kids in the home at the time. The mother and father of the children are divorced, and the children visit the father every other weekend. The court will probably immediately halt the father's shared custody privileges, but what about those children's safety? Does the mother have an unsecured gun sitting on a table out in the open? I sure hope so, otherwise those kids will be in even more danger.

--Percy


    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 4935 of 5038 (784746)
05-22-2016 12:38 PM


Texas stepdad shot and killed 3-year-old for jumping on the bed

You know what we need to protect children from? Transsexuals!


  
RewPrev1
...
327328
329
330331
...
336Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017