Biden's Gun Control Law Will Radically Change U.S. Gun Ownership

And thus, does not prove it.

 

And so, the object is to stop the invader.
So, we're back to:
How much more likely is it be used to kill a family member than to stop a home invader?
Well?

 

To confiscate the AR15s, they have to know has AR15s.
Et al.
And while they may never fully succeed, registration makes the job easier.

 

Can you repost the link to the study, It's not showing up on my phone

 

Homicide Deaths Among Adult Cohabitants of Handgun Owners in California, 2004 to 2016: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 175, No 6 (acpjournals.org)

 

NVM

 

Conclusion:
Living with a handgun owner is associated with substantially elevated risk for dying by homicide.

"....associated with..."
That is: They found correlation.
As you know, correlation does not imply, much less prove causation.

Funded by:
The National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research
Their words:
(Significantly, a stand your ground law was successfully invoked to defend Florida resident George Zimmerman against murder charges for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager whom Zimmerman claimed had instigated a fight with him.)
https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/five-years-of-firearm-policy-research
This is a falsehood, no such defense was raised.
if they get this basic fact wrong, the remainder of their "research" is, at best, circumspect.

In conclusion:
Even if their research is valid - a questionable proposition - it does not prove your claim.

 

I raised my guns right. They have never hurt anyone. Now.. we need to do the same with our children.

 

No reasonable study is going to say "causes" in social science. This isn't Newtonian physics, this is people. Otherwise, stick to the actual study methods if you want to understand/critique it. Funded isn't the same as conducted. It's fine to raise your skepticism and carefully review the methods if the funding seems to have a political motive, but it doesn't invalidate the study.

 

I disagree, and that's not what the study was about. The study is about whether or not people die by homicide, along with details about it to understand confounders and whether it is related to the gun in the home. Whether there is a tradeoff in terms of losing less property vs dying, most likely people with guns do lose less property. But that's not the reason cited by most people to keep a loaded accessible gun in their home. And even those with property in mind, wouldn't generally trade it for their life.

 

so why not live without firearms and stop telling those of us who are experts in using them what we ought to do?

 

It's actually not about "experts," it's about regular people. We don't want regular people buying guns for the wrong reasons. This increases their odds, and those who live with them, of being killed by homicide, suicide, or accident. It will also have downstream effects by having more guns in circulation that can be acquired more easily by "bad guys" in the future. So people ought to be educated much like they were about tobacco and other drugs. Hopefully better than the fried egg drug commercial though.

 

All i see here is your inability to admit your "proof", isn't.

I would think you would think the credibility of your source is very relevant.

Whoever told you this - cite not included - lied to you --- and you let them.

Martin did not claim SYG, and as Martin had had Zimmerman pinned to the ground, rendering him unable to retreat, there was no need to invoke SYG -- Zimmerman argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury.

The initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman, former Sanford, Florida, Police Chief Bill Lee said last week (as paraphrased by CNN), "had nothing to do with Florida's controversial 'Stand Your Ground' law" because "from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense." And as The New York Times explained last month, "Florida's Stand Your Ground law...has not been invoked in this case." The only context in which "stand your ground" was mentioned during the trial was as part of the prosecution's attempt to undermine Zimmerman's credibility by arguing that he lied when he told Fox News host Sean Hannity that he had not heard of the law until after the shooting. During his rebuttal on Friday, prosecutor John Guy declared, "This case is not about standing your ground."
https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...ur-ground-relates-to-george-zimmerman/277829/

The controversial section of that law relates to the fact that there is no "duty to retreat," meaning that in non-stand your ground states one must, in most cases, first attempt to get away if he or she can.
In Florida, however, there is no such requirement and the shooter may "stand his or her ground" when firing in self defense.
But the duty to retreat was not an issue in either Dunn or Zimmerman. In both cases the defendants argued that deadly force was used because they "reasonably" believed that it was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily injury. That, is at its core, no different than the law in almost every other state.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/floridas-stand-ground-law-determine-zimmerman-dunn-cases/story?id=22543929

George Zimmerman, set to stand trial in the 2012 shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin, on Tuesday waived his right to a “stand your ground” pretrial immunity hearing. Zimmerman’s attorneys have decided they will try this as a self-defense case.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html

Thus, the statement...
(Significantly, a stand your ground law was successfully invoked to defend Florida resident George Zimmerman against murder charges for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Black teenager whom Zimmerman claimed had instigated a fight with him.)
... is a falsehood; as such the remainder of their "research" is, at best, circumspect.

 

what gives you the standing to tell someone else "for the wrong reasons". comparing tobacco with guns suggests to me a poisonous bias that taints any "recommendation" you might make. First of all-our government issues millions of guns to civilian employees. Secondly, those trying to dissuade gun ownership are almost 99% guaranteed to be left-wingers. Third, the dishonesty of the anti gun movement is well known

 

There you go again, arguing correlation proves causation.

Oh! Added bonus:
Your study only includes handguns.
It does not include rifles or shotguns
Did you know that?

 

I want to thank everyone on this thread for making me feel good about my choice to retire to Texas almost six years ago. We have "Constitutional Carry" here, able to carry open or concealed without any permits or registration, not constrained by magazine capacities, waiting periods, or other silly falderal. Texas has been declared a "sanctuary state" for the second amendment, offering hope that we will remain secure in our second amendment rights here in the future, I'm disturbed by all the discussion here about a right clearly defined and guaranteed in the Constitution and very happy we don't need to waste that sort of time and energy here.

TEXAS!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!

 

Just going where the evidence takes me as always. Nothing more or less to it than that. You may recall I was relatively agnostic about gun policy a few years ago. It's fine to debate the merits of the literature available, but you guys mostly take quick cheap shots.

 

I'm not sure if you even have any idea of the significance of correlation vs causation. The whole point of the design of the study is to control for confounders. In this case, the confounders are controlled for well. That makes it a very strong case, especially in the context of finding the same thing other independent studies found. And obviously I'm not limiting myself to this study in what I'm saying - this is just one of the well-designed ones.

Considering it's in the title of the study, yes. Is there some reason you think this detracts from the conclusion, or is this some kind of gotcha attempt based upon how I've phrased things in my posts?

 

Yeah you're right about the Zimmerman case, and I realized it within like 5 minutes of posting and that's why it was edited out but apparently you replied before that. I don't think it's relevant to the present discussion, though. And I never found that case particularly interesting.

Again, though. You are stating that it detracts from the credibility of the study. It does not. Not anymore than having a political funding source in general. It is the funding source organization that got the Zimmerman thing wrong. You still need to look into the methods to determine if it's a good study. But I guess that would take more effort than cheap shots.

 

From the study:

"Second, we excluded people who had acquired handguns between 1985 and the day they were otherwise eligible to enter the study cohort, unless their stock had been fully divested at that moment; their cohabitants were also excluded (n = 2 775 602). Third, we excluded people who were residing with handgun owners on the first day they appeared in the cohort (n = 401 721). Thus, all members of the study cohort began contributing observation time while unexposed (22). Some cohort members subsequently became exposed: when a person they lived with acquired a handgun, when they moved in with a handgun owner, or when a handgun owner moved in with them."

Why do you think these people were excluded? The exclusion of the bolded reduced the size of the sample cohort by 40%

 

Oh, . but I do.
And so do the authors of your study, as they do not claim proof of causality.

Ah - good.
This means you know each of these claims, and some others I did not copy, are, at best, unsupported, and at worse, outright false.

-People clearly don't realize owning a gun in their home doesn't make them safer.
-and that study showed that living with a gunowner increases your odds of being murdered.
-living with the person who legally owns a gun doesn't make your safer.
-If they say they are owning a gun to protect their family, that is a misinformed choice. It is against the evidence.
-But if the point was to own the gun to protect your family at home (or be protected, from the perspective given by the study) it means it's not a rational reason.
-this study (along with other studies on the same topic) show that it does not make you safer to live with a lawful gun owner.
-This study, along with the earlier studies of more limited design consistently show: Don't buy a gun to protect your family from home invasion murder.
-Their risk of murder is doubled (albeit double a small number) by having the gun in the house

Your study only deals with handguns, you claims refer to the presence of any gun, regardless of type.

See above.

 

lol, exactly the pointless cheap shot I expected, though I hoped you would have something interesting to say. I get it now. You're immune to evidence and won't honestly evaluate studies. We can stop now. Agree to disagree.

 

The study appears to show a miniscule risk. Should citizens be able to judge for themselves how much risk they can accept in their lives?

 

To ensure that people in the exposed and unexposed groups start out as similar as possible, which reduces the risk of unaccounted for confounding factors. It's true that it reduced the sample size. Fortunately, they had data on millions of people so were still able to get statistically significant results.

 

Because you don't want the credibility of your source impeached
Too late.
Do you suppose they spoke from ignorance or dishonesty?

Convenient that you just write of the possibility of funding bias