Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid

You are wrong.
Most people that carry are not paranoid.
As a retired LEO, most people I meet are not a danger nor do I imagine anyone being a danger.

However, I have been attacked by people and I carry to be able to defend myself if attacked by an Armed person or a rabid animal.

 

Post the actual links to the data.

Present the data that was used, and such will be determined.

 

Lack of any substance refuting the documented Congressional Record evidence provided duly noted and ignored per the reasons already stated in post #600 above.

Have a nice day!

 

Inappropriate request. These are large datasets typically available to researchers. It would neither be reasonable or practical to post a dataset onto a forum.

I've give you the conclusion and an example of the empirical evidence. You can of course simply ignore the evidence. Its the outcome that I expect.

 

Pray tell why would presenting the so-called data be neither reasonable nor practical? The only reason for such a claim, would be that doing such would actually undermine the mistaken conclusions by those who have a political motivation, and use their position to cast themselves as an authority for what political policies should be implemented.

Simply because someone with a doctorate has arrived at a conclusion does not mean it is correct. Arthur Kellerman possessed a doctorate, and the conclusions of his study have been thoroughly debunked as being false.

 

You don't see to understand the approach adopted in empirical research. Large data sets are used, enabling one of the following: cross-sectional, time-series or panel. You don't use forums to present datasets. You maintain them on statistical systems such as SPSS, Limdep or State.

The author provides a review of the evidence. That evidence confirms the increased risk. If you want to present an alternative piece of evidence be my guest. Why haven't you?

 

Present the actual data so that such may indeed be done.

 

Again, you don't present data. You refer to the outcome of hypothesis test. I've already done that. Any counter evidence or are you going to permanently hide from the evidence?

 

One cannot hide from evidence, when evidence is not actually presented. All that has been presented is a mere claim by one who has done nothing to demonstrate the basis of their position, what data was referred to, what correlation methodology was used, how the data was controlled, what it was compared to, or a number of other variables that continue to remain unknown.

Arthur Kellerman attempted to pull such a stunt when he claimed that a person who owned a firearm was forty three times more likely to use it to kill a family member than protect themselves from a criminal threat. Both sis so-called "study" and the methodology used to arrive as such a conclusion, has been thoroughly debunked and discredited since it was initially released.

 

You do that every time you make these comments. I've referred to a published source that summarises the available empirical analysis.

Its not a 'mere claim'. It is a concise literature review.

Kellerman is but one of many. And let's not forget that, so far (and I'm predicting it will continue), you haven't been able to refer to one study on the subject.

 

And yet nothing has actually been presented. There have been no links to follow, no sources to visit, nothing whatsoever that is actually available without first being purchased. Such is not how open, honest, and legitimate debate and discussion is done.

Not until such time that it is actually made available for independent review

Referring to a particular study on a particular subject is a necessity and requirement only when attempting to prove that an initial claim is indeed factually correct. It is a requirement for the one making the claim, rather than the one explaining why and how the claim is either false, or otherwise incorrect in its presentation.

 

You haven't even looked at the article have you? I didn't gain access to it via my firm so I'm assuming its free to view. But isn't that the point? You attack sources because they don't support your bias. There's no other content, no validity of argument.

Go and read it. Your continual claim that you don't have to read the evidence is not logical.

The paper, if you have bothered to read it, refers to multiple papers. If you had bothered to read the literature you would already know that. Why don't you know any of the evidence?

 

Then present the link for review, rather than an excerpt from it.

Numerous so-called "experts" released one paper after another, trying to scientifically prove that private firearms ownership, and firearms in general, cause far more harm than any measure of good that could be derived from their presence. And in each and every case, these so-called "experts" are using false data, and crooked methodologies to arrive at their conclusions. Why should it be believed that the paper being referred to in this particular matter is of any difference in its nature?

 

I've given the full reference and I will continue to follow best practice.

You don't have to believe anything. You should be critical. Attacking a piece will typically refer to specific comment on the empirical methodology or refer to counter evidence. You've achieved neither.

 

The best practice is to provide the actual link itself when asked for such, rather than referring to where the link can be found.

 

The best practice would be to read the source for yourself and present a contrary argument if you feel so moved.

 

This only advertises that you don't know the nature of evidence. There are multiple sources. For example, I can't gain access from some of the academic search engines. I could give the DOI too, but you have everything you need from the full reference. Just read! Engage in the research

 

"Research" is now sitting in front of a television for most.

 

There is evidence that you're more likely to own a gun, ceteris paribus, if you watch cop shows. That's an interesting angle: where subjective fears encourage outcomes that lead to objective risks.

 

Yet another claim about the existence of evidence, but said evidence is not presented to demonstrate proof of concept.

 

Figures, when you think about it. Corporate state media pushes fear and gun sales go up.

 

A vicious circle of fear no less! Of course we have to be careful on this sub-forum. There's also the experimental evidence into testosterone effects from guns. I might get viciously pelted with angry 'evidence don't matter'

 

Ah yes, almost certainly, but it will be nothing but emotional playground level diarrhea.

 

I'd drown eventually. Of course that's the purpose: they attack the empirical approach, as one, as a means to eliminate rational debate. Its a highly effective strategy.

 

Alternative facts baby, all that matters is feelings and beliefs. I never trust anyone who prances around listing their beliefs; they are alerting me that they are no longer thinking, they simply believe.