Buying a gun for protection is usually for the mathmatically challenged

[Quixote1818]

I remember when I was in college and my statistics professor said he didn't gamble because gambling was for people who were mathematically challenged. I never forgot that line and have perhaps gambled once or twice $5 or $10 bucks in my entire life. I loved that saying so much I started using it when discussing guns with people because statistics show you are generally less safe with a gun in the house. In fact it was that lesson by my professor that helped me decide not to buy a gun.

I am not big on taking away peoples rights and if people want to have a gun and increase the probability of either themselves or a family member killed that unfortunately is there choice but I inform them that the math and probabilities are stacked against them. I personally have always been a fan of science, mathematics, statistical probability and make decisions that improve my probability of being safe or just doing what is probably most beneficial to my wellbeing. That being said, there are instances where having a gun is probably a good decision and helps your probabilities for safety but you need to weigh them carefully. For example some neighborhoods are very dangerous and for some people who travel long distances and risk having car trouble out in the middle of nowhere it might be warranted to have a gun in the car and improve your probability of being safe, but in the vast majority of cases you are probably increasing the probability of someone you love getting hurt or killed by owning a gun. Decisions are usually best when you weigh the statistics first and I personally think the campaign against guns would probably be more effective if people were told that owning a gun is for the mathematically challenged as the probabilities for remaining safe go down with a gun. It might make them think a bit more about buying the gun if it were put in these terms. Or maybe not since so many people suck at math. But as I said, owning a gun for safety is usually for the mathematically challenged.

http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/

[guillaumeb]

1. Given the astronomical amounts that are wagered each year,

and the hundreds of millions of guns that are owned by frightened citizens, I vote for mathematically challenged as the default position.

[GGJohn]

6. Owned by frightened citizens?

So, am I to assume that you've interviewed each and every firearm owner who told you that they're frightened?

[guillaumeb]

7. I did not say every gun owner.

[stone space]

20. Maybe he just read your comment here and extrapolated from that.

When people like you, with your past posts on firearms, say common sense laws, the hairs on the back of my neck tend to rise with alarm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172178141#post6

[Snobblevitch]

2. If you are going to use statistics,

(I really hated statistics in college) then you also will have to admit that statistically, a person has only a tiny percentage of being shot if they have a gun in their home, that is, if they are otherwise law abiding.

[gejohnston]

3. however, the writer fails to cite the

many studies, done by criminologists, who found that there are hundreds of thousands of defensive gun uses each year.
Also, public health studies are rarely valid.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime

It isn't the math, it is the input data. You can create a model to come to any conclusion you want, all you have to do is be selective in the input data.

For example, the Kellerman study, that these are based on, picked a few home invasions where the victims were shot in Philadelphia. He never confirmed if the gun was brought in from the outside or not.
There are about 100 million legal gun owners, up to a million defensive gun uses per year, very few resulting in deaths.
http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

[libodem]

4. K&R

Bookmarked

[Kang Colby]

5. Nonsense.

The article repeatedly cites David Hemenway who refers to gun owners as "wusses" along with few other academic achievements. This guy's entire academic career has been devoted to gun control advocacy. That's all OK with me, yet he refuses to acknowledge countless DGUs where injury or death did not occur, thus under representing the benefit of gun ownership for self defense purposes in the net benefit equation. Why would he purposefully underrepresent the benefits...oh because he has devoted his career to the belief that "guns suck".

The other studies have issues with reverse causality, e.g. people who plan to commit suicide or domestic violence go out and buy a gun. Reverse causality positively skews the association with gun ownership and death. People don't care about blips in positive correlation within the entire population, they want to know what is their risk. Due to the number of variables it is not possible with the methodology commonly used in these "studies" to adequately assess whether access to a gun increases the risk of death at the individual level. This is even more complicated when you attempt to factor in the benefit of gun ownership in terms of DGUs.

[guillaumeb]

8. And what of the studies that show that households with guns

are more likely to suffer gun-related injuries?

[gejohnston]

9. you mean studies that show that there are more

snowmobile accidents in Yellow Knife, NWT, than Miami? How about the CDC stats that show that more people die from accidental falls than guns? That Drano kills more children than guns?

[guillaumeb]

10. First, we should combine these two posts and save time.

Second, are you saying that proximity relates to likelihood of usage? If so, would not eliminating the object used reduce the likelihood of injury?

[virginia mountainman]

11. So "eliminating the object" is your goal?

[Decoy of Fenris]

12. It's never about saving lives, y'notice that? It's always a gun-boner. Like they have a fetish... nt

[guillaumeb]

13. My goal, and it should be the goal of everybody,

is eliminating the gun carnage that causes 30,000 US citizens to die from firearms related causes each year.


The HOW is obviously the source of much debate.

[virginia mountainman]

14. That is my goal as well..

Unfortunately I spend most of my time dealing with willful ignorance, that does nothing but loose elections and piss off voters, much less "help stop any carnage".

Talk of "bans" and "registration" really get my dander up, as being totally pointless.

[guillaumeb]

15. The obvious follow up question is:

How would you achieve our mutual goal?

By the way, are you from Virginia?

I ask because my daughter lived in Lynchburg for a few years. A very beautiful area.

[gejohnston]

18. out of the 30K

21K are suicides. 8100 are murders mostly drug gangs killing each other. Illegal drugs are very profitable. Before the WoD and the ban on mail order guns, these gangs were about turf and being king bad ass. They settled their issues in park at night, away from innocents, and beat the shit out of each other with chains. No, I'm not saying repeal the Gun Control Act. I am saying the best way, in fact the only way, to take away THEIR guns is to take away their money.

[guillaumeb]

29. From the CDC

Number of homicides in 2013: 16,121

Number of gun homicides in 2013: 11,208.

That works out to approximately 66% of all homicides being committed with a gun.


Number of suicides in 2013: 41,149

Number of gun suicides in 2013: 21,175.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm (This is my source for both sets of numbers)

So guns were used to kill 37,296 people in 2013. My number of 30,000 gun deaths was an average, but the actual number is higher. Your post makes it look like guns deaths are les than they actually are. Interesting. Also interesting is that you provided no source for your numbers.

That said, I agree with you about the war on drugs. Like Prohibition, it merely criminalizes behavior and encourages criminal competition.

[gejohnston]

31. I used last years FBI figures

on the homicides.
21K gun suicides turning into 21K rope suicides isn't progress.

[guillaumeb]

32. Understood on the numbers. Agreed on "progress".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. So anything that kills 30,000 people annually is open?

[gejohnston]

17. there are two sides of the ledger

the number of injuries that we agree should be reduced is more than offset by the positive uses. Not all usage is negative for society. For example, a kid in my fourth grade class blew away his step father. Yes, if he didn't have access to that gun step dad wouldn't be dead, or at least not by him. Here is the other side of the ledger, his mother and he would be dead. Step dad was a drunken abusive POS. In one of his drunken rages, he was beating mom to death with his bare fists. Kid got the deer rifle and, and shall we say, put an abrupt end the the violence.
I use my guns on a regular basis, just not at any living being that isn't food.

Another example
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/impd-robbery-attempt-results-in-fatal-shooting

[beardown]

24. Simple solution that ignores complexity of overall issue

It's sounds so simple. Too many gun deaths? Eliminate guns.
Too many car deaths? Eliminate cars.
Too many drunks? Eliminate booze. Ironically, prohibition propelled the mobs into supersized, massively funded, city controlling organizations and helped spike the murder and gun murder stats up.
Too many rapes? Eliminate men. I don't mean shoot them. Just put them in internment camps like we did the Japanese. I mean, if it prevents one rape you know.

Quick and simple solutions do not exist for gun violence. By the way, gun violence is going down and has been for years once the second major prohibition (war on some drugs ) and the hike in the number of young men from the baby boomers subsided anyway. Drunk driving deaths are way down and without confiscating cars or booze, although there have been major erosion of Constitutional rights.

How many deaths are you willing to accept if the govt decided to confiscate all guns? If it's more than zero, than you are making a similar value judgement that many lawful and well regulated gun owners do when they decide to own a gun, ergo if you are willing to accept deaths to meet your goal then we are both making the same decisions, but just on different points on the scale.

Not meant to be insulting. I just don't accept gun banning as a viable solution for a supposedly democratic nation. Every post or day spent pursuing this 'goal' takes energy and time away from viable real world solutions.

[guillaumeb]

30. Your post was thoughtful and not at all insulting.

If homicide rates are declining, and I agree that they are, does that not mean that the necessity of a gun for personal defense is also declining?

[beardown]

35. Yes.

Certain things can spike the perceived value or need of carrying a weapon, like electing a black president. Hey, I didn't say all of them were valid or reasonable.

As the gun violence and overall violence declines, so will the number of people that decide it's worth the trouble and risk to carry.

I firmly believe that gun violence can be cut by 1/3 to 1/2 without changing or ignoring (wholesale anyway) the Constitution. Look at drunk driving which was common place a generation ago. While they've seriously eroded many Constitutional protections, at least we can still have a drink and drive a car, just not at the same time.

[guillaumeb]

36. Agreed. And like the DUI example, a nice analogy by the way,

only a tiny fraction of gun owners use their guns to commit crimes. And only a tiny fraction of US citizens are victims of crimes. The response, over 100 million weapons in civilian hands, is out of proportion to the need. Fear is driving these sales, not need.

[Kang Colby]

16. It's complicated, bro.

The corpus of research to date, probably suggests a need for more research to better distinguish the risk and protective factors associated with guns in the home, including an examination of the risk associated with other variables.

If someone isn't planning to commit suicide and has an understanding of proper firearm safety, I wouldn't worry about gun ownership itself causing their untimely demise. There are well over 300 million guns in this country owned by 40% of Americans.

[guillaumeb]

37. Please see responses 35 and 36. eom

[Straw Man]

19. Odds.

I am not big on taking away peoples rights and if people want to have a gun and increase the probability of either themselves or a family member killed that unfortunately is there choice but I inform them that the math and probabilities are stacked against them. I personally have always been a fan of science, mathematics, statistical probability and make decisions that improve my probability of being safe or just doing what is probably most beneficial to my wellbeing.

I'm sure you're aware as a fan of "science, mathematics, statistical probability" that a statistical result can change radically when you limit your sample by introducing variables. For example, auto accident rates for teenagers are much higher than rates for the general population.

Following this principle, I think you will find that the rates of gun death of the gun owner or a family member go way down when you limit your sample to people with have no criminal record, do not abuse drugs or alcohol, and have some training in the safe handling of firearms.

In other words, I'll take my chances.

[ileus]

21. Thanks anyway, I trust myself more than your stats.

Have a little faith in yourself instead of following the sheep.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. ...Hemenway...

Welcome to the trashcan club.

[beardown]

23. Probability and Stats sure takes the mystery out of gambling

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 12:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I remember a saying about math too.

You can drown in a river that only averages 12 inches in depth.

Here's an unofficial stat. Most times discussions that start with "I am not big on taking away peoples rights and if people want to have a XXXXXX" you can assume that the person wants to take away your XXXXXX.

There are different types of gambling. Gambling for fun and gambling for profit. Most folks know the house has an edge and consider the fun and excitement as the profit from gambling and not just the actual net monetary impact. I used to 'gamble', but I did not gamble to gamble. I gambled to win. I only gambled on NFL football and card games where there was no built in statistical edge for the house, outside of the bet fee so to speak. I made calculated bets based on analysis of NFL games or other card players' abilities and tendencies.

I don't know if it's related to this subject, but it's one of my favorite probability lines of all time (what are the odds anyone has a favorite probability line?). Original Star Trek series. Kirk and Spock are trying to infiltrate an enemy base. Spock says "we only have a 1.2 percent (something like that) chance of succeeding". Kirk replies, "Spock, either we make it or we don't. It's 50 50."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. What about gamblers who can count the cards in a shoe?

[darkangel218]

27. I didn't read the rest of the post beyond the title.. But really???

I am a rape survivor. I carry a gun for protection, so that II have a chance to protect myself in thefutureif I am ever assaulted again.

Thread trashed.

On edit, thanks for the slap in the face to the victims who own or carry a gun to protect themselves. Shame on whoever wrote what they wrote.

Adios.

[darkangel218]

28. I actually won't trash this thread.

You should be ashamed of yourself to label all gun owners "mathematically challenged"!!!! I don't give TWO rats who wrote il this article! Why are you posting it?? It is our right to protect ourselves!!! Take it to the Supreme Court if you want to take that away from us, don't just sit there behind your computer calling us names!!

Shame on you. :'(

[Eleanors38]

33. It is an unfortunate that some "liberals" use a presumed intellectual prowess...

to attack millions of others, especially when the data used to support that presumed prowess is itself so questionable.

A few years back the CDC issued an executive summary analyzing the major approaches to gun policy and its impact on crime and safety and concluded there was not much to show they had an effect on those goals. That includes, btw, John Lott's study purporting to show less crime resulted from increased concealed-carry numbers.

That prowess is pretty meaningless.

Want another example of prowess somewhat outside the mathematical side of things? Google Michael Bellisile's "Arming America."

[Straw Man]

34. Yes. I've always found it strange ...

... that some people think the best way to persuade others is to start by telling them they're stupid.