Posted on 09/12/2013 7:36:42 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
yes. It’s junk science, without the science.
A real variable would be comparing legal gun ownership as opposed to illegally owned guns. Me thinks that variable was intentionally left out to skew the data.
[sincerity, average] You mean there's a difference between legally and illegally owned guns? How could that be? All guns are designed to kill people, aren't they? [/sincerity]
In some states gun ownership is nearly universal. Those are the states with the largest absence of data. (Hint: check out western states with the lowest crime rates.)
to be scientific, they really do need to separate legal gun owners from criminal/illegal gun owners.
Until then it’s junk science trying to push a gun-grabbing agenda at all costs.
This just in:
A study found that the rate of drunk drivers are higher in households that own cars.
Reckon this prof has a dog in this fight?
vaudine
Interesting... they admit that the facts contradict the conclusion they came to using proxy data... The gun ownership rate went up by a considerable percentage during that time period while the murder rate went down..
They couldn’t find their asses with both hands !
Rust never sleeps.
“gun violence” or “gun homicides” is a propaganda statistic.
What matters is total unjustified homicides.
If “gun homicides” go up, but total unjustified homicides go down, it is a win.
If “gun homicides” go down, but total unjustified homicides go up, it is a loss.
They are attempting to define the biggest part of the debate out of the question.
They start with a strawman argument: “the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) claim that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased gun violence.”
I do not think the NRA has ever made that argument. The real claim is that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased unjustified homicides.
They completely sidestep that claim by only looking at “gun violence”, however they define that.
Notice that the headline makes the propaganda switch that the study does not show.
The headline claims the study shows a link between gun ownership and homicides.
The “study” claims to show a link between gun ownership and *gun* homicides.
A huge difference. Bait and switch.
Yep - most of us, who have had guns, have this silly goal of never having to point them at another human being... Being armed always made me a bit more polite so as to not be involved in anything that might set some idiot off and require me to defend myself.
I quote:’In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership”
Dear AFP, That isn’t any of your, or the State’s business!!
A high percentage of those most at risk for homicide (criminals) can be expected to posses a gun. Most homicide victims have criminal records.
You know its phony, when they use the term "gun violence". Gun violence includes when a rapist is shot by a women defending herself or home invaders, or liquor store robbers get themselves shot. "Gun violence" includes suicides with guns. Gun violence includes a homeowner brandishing his gun and scares off burglars.
In other words, to these "researchers" all gun violence is equal. Shooting a toddler in a stroller is the same as self-defense. They are insane, these people.
Oooops, they may have overlooked the CDC study and Harvard study.
I found myself to be much more polite behind the wheel after getting my first permit to carry.
Same here - I may curse under my breath, but no longer react the way I used to when some idiot cuts me off or does something else stupid and dangerous. If anything ever escalates, it won't be my choice and I'll have a clear conscience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.