Summations Only

So you are completely invalidating the study because you found one reference that did not totally support every part of the study.Really???Are you really going to stoop to that crap?Now if you were really interested in looking at things rationally and objectively you would have actually read the study and seen that the reference you looked at #16 is a reference for this line in the report.

quote:

---

Other case-control studies have also found an increased risk of suicide for those with firearms in the home, with relative risks ranging from 2.1 to 4.4

---

Talk about manipulating data.Just because you cannot click on a link and get the info means nothing. Are you making accusations of scholarly fraud here?Tell you what. When you can find actual problems with the study come back and post on it. The references are all available, you will just need to do work to get them.That you think one reference does not support all the aspects of the study, thus the study is invalidated is freaking nuts. Do you have any idea how research like this is done? Do you know the purpose of a footnote and references? What does that have to do with the conclusions?

Strawman, strawman, strawman.I am and I know of no one posting here that is calling for gun confiscation.It seems to me you are arguing against yourself. Jon seems to be implying that since governments have confiscated guns before, people in the US should be concerned about gun confiscation.Therefore, I asked for data on previous gun confiscations. With that info we could look at the circumstances to see if they are in any way applicable to the US. Seems like the logical step to take. Then again I am seeing little logic from that side.

Good day, sir.

Then I evidently misunderstood your post to Percy.What did you mean by the following statements? You are using one of the original sources to try to invalidate the paper aren't you? If not, what was the point you tried to make? How can you make a determination of how good the data is if you only look at one source?

Thanks for making that reply, NoNukes.I confess I found Jon's reply to my post such a stinking, reeking turd of intellectual dishonesty that I lost my appetite for the discussion.

Those aren't statements. They're called "questions". You can tell by this curvy punctuation at the end: "?"They do not make points. They request information. The information that is being sought is if the data is actually good enough to warrant stating that conclusion matter of factly. Strawman, strawman, strawman.I am and I know of no one posting here that is calling for only looking at one source.It seems to me you are arguing against yourself.

Come on. You are embarrassing yourself. Your insinuations are clear.You clearly are telling Percy that there is a problem with his original source, when you have shown no problem whatsoever. But you used one source to raise a red flag. You actually did it, anyone can see that that is what you did. You accuse Percy of doing something you actually did.As always, I see you ignore what the actual points are and resort to muddying the debate.

But this is what you actually do. In fact, it's what you actually keep doing again and again. I respect you personally, but when we talk about gun control that is exactly what you do. You try to make up an excuse so that you can ignore the data.

But I'm not ignoring the data. I'm trying to get down to it. The people who are for gun control seem to be very accepting of questionable data as long as it says that guns are bad. These same people won't accept anything but the most stringently scrutinized data to even consider something that they don't already accept.I'll admit that I'm not buying it up front, but its not an excuse to ignore the data. Where's the data that shows that guns in homes make you less safe? All I've found in the very limited time I've had to look has been very unconvincing.

Please stop lying about me.

Okay here's another one:From the study: Referece #20 The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide

quote:

---

Methods. A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing.

​

Results. The adjusted relative risk for suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase.

​

Conclusions. Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

---

117 homicide victims from 1980 - 1992 is what is going to determine if purchasing a gun will increase your chance of being a homicide victim? Really?Do you really think that is good data?

Yes. Why do you think it is not? Can you show studies that counter this?Show multiple studies that do not come to the conclusions of the paper you are attacking.They are using science. The weight of the evidence is against you.You are acting like a creo. Instead of finding evidence that supports your beliefs you are attacking any data that is counter to your beliefs.

The sample size is too small and its outdated.

Which makes the data suspect, it makes the evidence less strong than a similar study with a larger sample size would provide.What it does not do is allow you to simply disregard it as meaningless. When the only evidence available is a weak study, the rational response is to slightly adjust your expectations of reality pending additional information.Instead, what you appear to be doing is simply saying "that doesn't count."I'd love to see a more comprehensive study - I'm sure every intellectually honest person concerned with the topic would. Feel free to find us one, regardless of the results.But the proper response to even a large degree of uncertainty in the presence of weak evidence is not "we have no idea." The proper response is "well, it's not much, but it looks like it's pointing this way."ABE: Your criticism of the study as "outdated" is somewhat worse off, as the age of a study is irrelevant so long as the relevant context of the study remains constant...much the way that Gregor Mendel's work with peas is still perfectly valid today even in the presence of a much deeper and broader selection of work on the topic since. Since, of course, you would have mentioned the invalidating changes that time has introduced if such changes had happened instead of simply attacking the age itself, I presume that you have no rational basis for dismissal due to age, and are simply trying to handwave evidence you personally don;t like.I'm reminded of a scene in "Liar, Liar" where Jim Carey makes an objection, and in response to the judge's query as to the grounds of the objection, Carey says "because it destroys my case!"Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

All data is "questionable" when you look at it hard enough. There are always alternative hypotheses, alternative interpretations. But it does seem like all the "questionable" data points in the same direction. And so you question it bit by bit. On this same thread (IIRC) you have called one data set into question because it controlled for economic factors, and another because it didn't. Both may have been reasonable objections ... and yet, it turns out that whatever way you slice it, guns are dangerous (whoda thought it?)