Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 89
Results 281 to 304 of 304

Thread: your personal protection

  1. #281
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Baltimore Maryland
    Posts
    10,861

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Who said I don't get it? I was just factually countering Normans post.
    Ratus ratus bilgeous snipeous!

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  2. #282
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,409

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    Violent crime is down significantly in New York and Boston, since the 90's, as well.. places where the carrying of firearms is prohibited... and it's a valid argument against a causative link.

    I automatically dismiss anecdotal evidence.... because it simply descends into dueling anecdotes, which is not informative of anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Adams View Post
    And murder reaching new highs in Baltimore, located in Maryland which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
    True. More information is needed to make sense of either statistics.

    I live in NH. It is sometimes called the tailpipe of the country. Much of the pollution of the Midwest passes overhead and we get a lot of acid rain even though polluting industry in this state is quite minimal. We have to contend with what flows in from outside. Gun laws are much the same. To make sense of these statistics, we need to look at the neighboring states to see if either New York or Baltimore has a buffer making it more difficult to bring illegal weapons in. Better yet, let's look at Australia which is isolated by water. I believe their murder rates went down when guns were taken off the streets.

  3. #283
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    21,924

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Hey! We stop a lot of the crap from the Midwest before it gets to you!
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  4. #284
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    43,224

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    We need to make it clear that responsible, trained folks (like posters here) who CC are not the issue.

    What is the issue are the thousands of people who've decided they need a gun for protection, go do the 2 week (or whatever minimal) training to get the CC permit required by their state, and then consider themselves all set to be the "good guy with the gun" and need never train with the gun again.

    I cannot go into details, but I have direct experience with 1,000's of guns being shipped back to the manufacturer with magazines still in them, many 100's with a round in the chamber & several hundred with not only a full mag, but a round in the chamber & the safety off. If they can do this, how good are their safety habits when carrying?
    Not sure if that's true. That numbers tell us that keeping a gun in the house ups the odds of someone in your circle is injured by a gun. Also that carrying a firearm actually increases your odds of being harmed by a gun.

    I suppose one could dig into the numbers and discover that there is a certain small % of owners/carriers - a subset defined by certain characteristics - that encounter/cause all the trouble. And that the much larger % of owners/carriers are truly LESS apt to be injured by a gun. Hypothetically... that's conceivable. But I'm not aware of any such research. Are you?
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  5. #285
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    43,224

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    So...

    Phased Lock Loop & Mr. Wright -- did you read the study? Any thoughts to share?
    Anything yet?
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  6. #286
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    3,099

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Anything yet?
    I've been busy and I've been wondering whether I should respond, given your routine condescension. Two of my posts provide you with some of my response, but it's apparently not good enough for you, why should I do more? Tell you what, look up some of the articles by Garen Wintemute MD, MPH. Check out his bio, satisfy yourself that he satisfies your particular requirements on gun control. Maybe start with this piece:

    American Journal of Public Health, June 2010

    "FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT"


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/
    Last edited by Dave Wright; 01-13-2018 at 08:46 PM.

  7. #287
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    3,099

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Here's the wiki info on Wintemute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garen_Wintemute

  8. #288
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    21,924

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Not sure if that's true. That numbers tell us that keeping a gun in the house ups the odds of someone in your circle is injured by a gun. Also that carrying a firearm actually increases your odds of being harmed by a gun.

    I suppose one could dig into the numbers and discover that there is a certain small % of owners/carriers - a subset defined by certain characteristics - that encounter/cause all the trouble. And that the much larger % of owners/carriers are truly LESS apt to be injured by a gun. Hypothetically... that's conceivable. But I'm not aware of any such research. Are you?
    Nope - but (I realize it's anecdotal) the folks I know who conceal carry & are serious, responsible gun owners are very careful
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  9. #289
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,409

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    Hey! We stop a lot of the crap from the Midwest before it gets to you!
    Sorry and we thank you. In truth, I mean northern New England in general.

  10. #290
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    43,224

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wright View Post
    I've been busy and I've been wondering whether I should respond, given your routine condescension. Two of my posts provide you with some of my response, but it's apparently not good enough for you, why should I do more? Tell you what, look up some of the articles by Garen Wintemute MD, MPH. Check out his bio, satisfy yourself that he satisfies your particular requirements on gun control. Maybe start with this piece:

    American Journal of Public Health, June 2010

    "FLAWS IN STUDY OF FIREARM POSSESSION AND RISK FOR ASSAULT"


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2866589/
    Interesting - your prior responses have consisted of short snark, and cryptic one-liners... and you want to accujse me of being disrespectful.

    But at least you have come around to offering something substantive to bolster your notions. And for that I am glad.

    So I read Wintermute's critique. My first time thru, I was struck with some logical problems, but it was interesting enough to make me go back and read the ncbi abstract of the original. Back & forth I went, picking at the details, and examining the language & the logic.

    I was left with a feeling that Wintermute has missed the point on a few of his efforts at criticism, but that issues of study design were beyond the scope of the abstracts, and beyond what I'm willing to parse.

    I don't know if you've ever designed such a study. I have tried my hand at it a few times at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. It's not easy, and the details matter. So... I thought... Wintermute might have a relevant point about how the study might have been designed better. But it wasn't obvious - barring deeper analysis - how. And if he was right on the facts, would it be relevant to the question being studied? Have you drilled deep enough to find some element of study design that would be a key to rebutting the studies conclusions? What was it?

    So then I went to the response to Wintermute from Branas, et. al.

    And they said basically and convincingly what I had thought. Wintermute was either incorrect, or correct but off-point. But they didn't offer any clarity about the issue of study design... just bald assertions of it's rectitude.

    So with that one question left open for further exporation, if it seems justified, and with some interesting suggestions from Wintermute about other questions that could be addressed, and slightly different perspectives of approach that might be enlightening... I'd have to call the the Wintermute effort a mighty swing, and a foul tip.

    You got more? So far, I'll stand with Branas, et. al.
    Last edited by David G; 01-14-2018 at 09:33 AM.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  11. #291
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    21,924

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    Sorry and we thank you. In truth, I mean northern New England in general.
    I get that - just had to give you some grief...
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  12. #292
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    43,224

    Default Re: your personal protection

    And then there's the work that's been done on how having a gun in the home increases your danger of injury/death. Here's one example --

    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858



    Abstract

    Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  13. #293
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,409

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    I get that - just had to give you some grief...
    Is the acid rain having an effect on the maple trees? I know that climate change is projected to destroy the trees, but I think I heard the maple industry is directly effected by the air pollution already.

  14. #294
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    21,924

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    Is the acid rain having an effect on the maple trees? I know that climate change is projected to destroy the trees, but I think I heard the maple industry is directly effected by the air pollution already.
    I haven't heard it will destroy them - just that in another 50-100 years we'll have a climate similar to the mid-atlantic states, which will mean no sugaring season to speak of.

    Acid rain is much better than it was. In the 70's roughly 3/4 of the lakes in northern NY were sterile due to acidification & red pines on mountains here died off because the ground fog got so acid. In the late 70's measurements on Camels Hump (2nd highest in VT) showed the ground fog as more acid than a dill pickle. Into the early 80's there was a red band around it from all the dead trees. Nowadays, trees are in pretty good health & most of the lakes have recovered.

    Good thing we're rolling back all that stupid EPA crap, eh?
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  15. #295
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    22,409

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    Good thing we're rolling back all that stupid EPA crap, eh?
    Job killers. Just in the nick of time.

    Which reminds me, the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia may go under water around the same time, but land on the hills above is still quite affordable. The AV always reminds me of Vermont with Maine on the eastern side of the peninsula and Scotland on the island to the north. Maybe it's time to buy land when Trump gets reelected?

    Dale won't like it. I don't think their gun laws are to his liking.

  16. #296
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    8,332

    Default Re: your personal protection

    He could own it, but he couldn't carry it around on his person.
    Use it on your own property, if appropriately located.
    Take it to and from the range for use there.
    Nosce te ipsum

  17. #297
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    21,924

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    Job killers. Just in the nick of time.

    Which reminds me, the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia may go under water around the same time, but land on the hills above is still quite affordable. The AV always reminds me of Vermont with Maine on the eastern side of the peninsula and Scotland on the island to the north. Maybe it's time to buy land when Trump gets reelected?

    ...
    I've been talking that up, but I keep hearing "Too far from the grandkids"...
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  18. #298
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    3,099

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    And then there's the work that's been done on how having a gun in the home increases your danger of injury/death. Here's one example --

    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858



    Abstract

    Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
    I don't carry a gun. The guns I have are securely locked and hidden. I regard some firearm handling practices as more dangerous than juggling a set bear trap. Only a fool would juggle a set bear trap. When I see a study on firearms, or any study for that matter, I try to evaluate it objectively, whether it confirms or refutes my existing beliefs.

    This morning I had time to look at the study you referenced. I noticed this line:

    ...regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.


    Since storage practices are frequently mentioned as critical, and since it is obvious that a child or unauthorized person can't readily access a hidden and locked firearm, I had to reflect on this a bit. In doing so I looked at:

    Table 5: Adjusted odds ratios for the more refined measures of a firearm in the home and risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home, United States.

    Looking at the "Firearm Homicide" column I note the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) for no firearm is 1.0.

    The AOR for handguns is 2.8
    The AOR long guns is 6.8
    The AOR for long guns and handguns is 8.0

    Looking at storage practices:

    More than 1 gun unlocked the AOR is 3.1
    All guns locked the AOR is 7.7

    Looking at the suicide column storage practices I see:

    More than 1 gun unlocked the AOR is 29.2
    All guns locked the AOR is 25.6

    I wonder if you have any thoughts on this, specifically with regards to homicides in the home, the high odds ratios for long guns compared to hanguns, and especially for the higher odds ratios for all guns locked compared to guns unlocked? Interestingly, in the suicide category, the odds ratio for guns unlocked is higher than guns locked.

    I can come up with my own "explanations" for these AOR's but the explanations are speculative and not very satisfying.

    As far as suicides go, I contrast results to a conclusion from an old Australian study (1996): "Access to Firearms and the risk of suicide: a case control study."

    The conclusion in this study was: "For this sample, access to a firearm was not associated with a significant increase in risk of suicide, although such access was associated with an increased probability that gunshot would be chosen as the method of suicide attempt."

  19. #299
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,183

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    So...

    Phased Lock Loop & Mr. Wright -- did you read the study? Any thoughts to share?

    Yeah, I read the report, though there’s plenty I don’t understand. It seems to assume that guns are only used in gunfights, in that anyone not wounded was ignored, and anyone who was wounded is assumed to have failed in self-defense. In my view, the most successful self-defense by a gun owner would be if no one was shot. (Back off!) Another successful scenario would be to disperse the threat, even when shot, by shooting back, without necessarily hitting anyone. I believe most people buy self-defense guns with such scenarios in mind. How realistic such notions are I don’t know, and won’t find out from this study.

    Then there’s the authors’ claim:
    ——————————-
    “We assumed that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of day or night. This is an acceptable assumption because guns are mobile, potentially concealable items and the bullets they fire can pass through obstacles and travel long distances. Any member of the general population has the potential to be exposed to guns and the bullets they discharge regardless of where they are or what they are doing. As such, we reasonably chose not to exclude participants as immune from hypothetically becoming cases because they were, for instance, asleep at home during the night or at work in an office building during the day.”
    —————————————————
    The “control” group was selected on the basis of this utter balderdash. I’m unsure of the significance of this, but such foolishness doesn’t give me any confidence in their analysis of confounding variables and other such tinkering, little of which I can follow.

    Lastly, the insistence by many here that the “numbers show” this or that about individual cases strikes me as akin to aggressive stupidity. Even assuming the study is accurate in all respects, it does not follow that a given person who arms him/herself stands a four-point whatever greater chance of being shot than someone who is weapon-free. The authors’ conclusion states:
    —————————-
    “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault...Such users should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dan- gerous environment, should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.”
    ————————
    That’s ON AVERAGE. Something to be considered, sure. That’s a long way from “the numbers tell us.” Even at best, that’s not all there is to it
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  20. #300
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Traverse City MI and Charlotte NC
    Posts
    3,183

    Default Re: your personal protection

    It doesn’t surprise me that people most fearful of assault are in fact assaulted more frequently than others. It suggests that their fear was well-founded.

    My criticism here is of the study. I think most people who have guns for self-defense would be better off without them. I think far far more people have CCW permits now that thirty years ago, and that there are many fewer shootings. I don’t for a second believe that more CCWs are the cause of lower gun crime, but it is (I think, subject to correction) a fact that they haven’t multiplied the shootings 4.x-fold, or anything like it.
    Well, Mr. Botard, do you still deny all rhinocerotic evidence?

  21. #301
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    3,099

    Default Re: your personal protection

    It's complicated. On one side you often have the position that all guns are a health hazard; if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths. You can't argue with that because it's a true statement, but there are all sorts of reasons why many gun owners don't, and won't, contribute to this hazard.

    On the other side you often have an anything goes, laissez faire attitude toward gun ownership, with a strong belief that a "good boy" will do little harm.

    On the anti side the researchers are generally more academically competent than those on the pro side, and are generally relentless in voicing their views. On the pro side I think folks are even more relentless and will never give up on what they feel is primal right to self defense, no matter what the collateral damage.

    Every now and then you will find a researcher on the anti side who at least admits the possibility of safe gun owners ("good boys").. For example, Garen Wintemute who runs UC Davis Firearm Violence Center is one of the few anti gun researchers who consider this. For example, from:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...2106#t=article

    "Our finding that the risk of death from homicide was lower among male purchasers of handguns than among men in the general population appears to conflict with findings in previous studies.8,11Differences in study populations may be responsible. The previous studies were based on current ownership of firearms, whereas we focused on the recent legal purchase of handguns. The presumably high socioeconomic status of our study population relative to that of the general population would lessen the risk of homicide25,26; the previous studies sought to minimize differences in socioeconomic status. The handgun purchasers in our cohort also passed a background check; none had a conviction for any felony or violent misdemeanor or were known to have been judged mentally ill or to be addicted to controlled substances. The absence of such potential risk factors for death by homicide means that our estimates may be subject to a “good boy” bias.27 "

  22. #302
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    43,287

    Default Re: your personal protection

    I have never read a study that was so incompetent about what statistics mean as to have written that everyone who possesses and/or carries a firearm is individually at higher risk. To assert anything like that is to display massive stupidity about statistics. So far as I have read, only critics of gun safety statistical studies accuse those researchers of such notions.

  23. #303
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Marietta, GA
    Posts
    8,917

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Not to change the current topic, but with advances in tech is there non-lethal self defense device that is as effective as a firearm? If there was I’d be good with that.
    Fight Entropy, build a wooden boat!

  24. #304
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Above the Sword of Domacles, with a scissors.
    Posts
    689

    Default Re: your personal protection

    Quote Originally Posted by Reynard38 View Post
    Not to change the current topic, but with advances in tech is there non-lethal self defense device that is as effective as a firearm? If there was I’d be good with that.
    My observation of this thread is that self defense is referring to defense in response to an agressor armed with a gun.

    in that case - Yes - there is a demonstrable method - legislate strongly to severely limit ownership of guns.
    But that will never be acceptable in the USA, so carry on watching news reports of strangers violently killing your children (which is evidently preferable in the USA).
    “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” - Charles Darwin (1809–1882)

    Nutshell Pram Build pictures ; https://photos.app.goo.gl/1GdBcckcgBAWsbVg1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •