http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html See the numbers yourself. Check not just gun laws but all in total violated. People with guns and licenses barely break any laws of any kind.
Why do you think handguns have been found to be more common in the homes of battered women than in households without handguns?
I believe the study you're referring to "Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women" from 2004. Lets look at those numbers carefully please. What they said is that something like 19% of the battered women they interviewed said there was a handgun in the home vs. the estimated 7% of the general population at that time. I would like to see an updated study here with more interviewed women and the latest firearm ownership statistics as I believe the handgun estimation has risen to somewhere around 18% or so (+/- a few percentages I'm sure). So yes, you're correct when you say that handguns appear to be "found" in this particular case. Lets be careful though - I don't want to see any implication that the existence of the firearm in the home indicates it as the cause of violence from this particular study. What their numbers show is: "About one third of the battered women had a firearm in the home. In two thirds of these households, the intimate partner used the gun(s) against the woman, usually threatening to shoot/kill her (71.4%) or to shoot at her (5.1%)." So something like 22% (rounding up) of all the women interviewed (417 battered women) where the firearms were actually used as part of the abuse. Breaking it down to handguns only, we see that 19% (rounding up) of all women interviewed (417 battered women) where a handgun was actually used as part of the abuse. I won't go into how they obtained their numbers and that this study is a bit outdated simply because of the sharp increase in gun ownership that has been seen over the past 8 years. Domestic abuse is a sad and ugly thing. I want to be clear though, the reason I break the numbers down is to prevent the study that Reiver cited from being used as an argument that handgun (or firearm ownership) begets domestic abuse (or general disregard for the law). In fact, if you look at the study, the following devices were used much more often than handguns (in no real order): Hands/Fists, Feet, Words, Door or Wall, Kitchen Knife, Other household objects, and Car/Pickup Truck/Other vehicle. Really, in the long run, of the people that break the laws some own guns and some use guns - there is a difference. In the above case we see that domestic abuse happens more in homes without guns than with guns. Additionally I'd like to see numbers where what prior abuse looked like - i.e. in the cases where a firearms was involved, was it involved in every case or just one? Also, how many of those guns were legally owned (purchased properly; owned by a non-prohibited person)? Overall, at least in the state of Michigan, legal gun owners appear to be, by and large fairly law abiding - this study does not show legal gun owners as law breakers (again; at least inside of Michigan) so the OPs point still stands.
There's no such thing as the perfect study. We'd always like to see improvements, enabling further robustness checks and the testing of alternative empirical methodologies. That would be especially the case with battered women analysis, given the lack of data (for obvious reasons). However, it certainly can be used to advertise the naivety shown in the opening post This is a non-comment. Changes in gun ownership data, be it an increase or decrease, cannot be used to question the validity of the research's findings. This would be a relevant point if I said "handguns are the cause of domestic violence". I haven't. All we see is the need to refer to the available empirical research given such binary thinking is crass. And the example I've used? It certainly questions the 'logic' used in the opening post. I won't be letting you get away with this deliberate skewing of the analysis. What we see is that domestic abuse is more likely to occur if a household owns a gun Domestic abusers are law breakers. And handgun owners are found to be more likely to be domestic abusers than non-handgun owners. The issue of course is what is behind that result. By buying a gun one doesn't just wake up the next morning with a higher probability of kicking one's wife's teeth in. There will be a third variable (or variables) that explain the link between guns and such horrendous family problems
Quick comments and I'm done: I was pointing out that it would be nice to see updated numbers because the sharp increase in gun ownership does matter. If we run the same study and the percentages don't rise, decrease, or increase all would mean different things. One data point is not enough in this case. Also, this was a very narrow study of California I believe with several parameters missing to effectively bring firearms into the discussion (it may make an interesting footnote, but as read in the study, it was not intended that way). Additionally, I should have been more clear with-> "In the above case we see that domestic abuse happens more in homes without guns than with guns." Rather what I should have said was: In the above cases where we see domestic abuse occur it happens in more homes without guns than with guns. I'll own that. The end point here though (and I think you agree in your final statement) is that having a handgun (or firearm) does not make you more likely to cause domestic abuse (which was the only case you've provided here; even if indirectly). There is no proof here that you've presented that shows owning a firearm makes you more likely to break the law, which the OP was trying to show the opposite (legal gun owners (concealed carry holders) generally don't appear to be prone to break the law, at least in the state of Michigan).
That would only be interesting if we were testing an additional hypothesis based on the relationship between spouse abuse and handguns being dependent on gun prevalence (e.g. spouse abusers are substantially more likely to demand guns and, as demand for gun increase, the probability of a 'marginal owner' being a wife beater will tend to zero). Rubbish! There is no need for a panel dataset unless we had more specific hypothesis: e.g. gun control legislation significantly reduces specific aspects on spouse abuse. No-one has referred to such a hypothesis so you're offering a red herring. So you're arguing that Calfiornian gun owners are significantly different to gun owners in general? Golly, that's a hardcore point of view! You've given a deliberate misrepresentation. I find that crass. The evidence shows that handgun owners are more likely to be domestic abusers than non-handgun owners. I haven't referred to any causal link. I have, however, showed the naivety of the opening post. You haven't provided anything to support that opening post.
Do men with mustaches abuse women more than men without? It appears as if Reiver is using the Association Fallacy.
An inane effort. I have merely referred to the empirical evidence and the gross error made in the opening post. You shouldn't be scared of evidence dear chap!
I am not scared of evidence, I dismiss studies that you refuse to post. LOL I believe that men with mustaches are more likely to beat there wives, there is a study John Doe, Doohy University, 2009, that supports my claim. But I refuse to provide the actual study.
You adopt a standard anti-intellectualism that confirms a fear of evidence. You've coupled that here with deliberate misrepresentation of my posts. Terribly crass!
