The point of the analogy is that the data is skewed by design. If you look at a dataset that only tracks skydiving deaths and completely ignores all of the successful jumps you will be left with the false impression that parachutes cause skydiving deaths. Same goes with data on gun use, most of this data completely ignores incidents were a gun was not fired and the crime was stopped or otherwise averted. The data is skewed by design and makes it worthless.
The point of the analogy is that the data is skewed by design. If you look at a dataset that only tracks skydiving deaths and completely ignores all of the successful jumps you will be left with the false impression that parachutes cause skydiving deaths. Same goes with data on gun use, most of this data completely ignores incidents were a gun was not fired and the crime was stopped or otherwise averted. The data is skewed by design and makes it worthless.
Not true.
There is a possible flaw in that approach, but it's not the one you suggest. The important comparison is how likely you are to get shot with a gun vs how likely you are to get shot without one. That establishes a correlation between gun ownership and risk of getting shot.
The flaw is this - it may be the case that people who are at greater risk (due to where they live or who they know) are more likely to own a gun. However, that flaw can still be fixed (and likely is fixed in decent studies) by controlling for other risk factors.
Moreover, if you read the actual study Jacob Sullum was referring to, you will find that the study clearly states that they did, in fact, include confounding factors in their modelling process - "We conceptually separated confounding variables in the association between victim gun possession and gun assault into individual and situational characteristics, both of which feed the eventual victim–offender interaction that results in gun assault."
That does clarify what I meant to imply: ownership of a parachute does not lead to death in and of itself but ownership of a parachute AND jumping out of planes will put you at greater risk of death.
It's not the parachute (or gun) but the activity that may cause death. Parachutes don't kill people sitting on their sofa watching TV neither will a gun sitting on your coffee table suddenly animate on its own and shoot you.
Do you know of any gun studies that control for those negative factors, because I do not.
Controlling for confounding factors is standard fare in any half-decent study. As I said before, the study your parachute quote was about did, in fact, include such an analysis, hence making the parachute quote rather misleading.
Also, another reason the parachute analogy fails is that even if a gun may improve your chances of not getting fucked up in a dangerous situation (which in itself is subject to doubt), it's not worth it if that is outweighed by a greater likelihood of your getting into that dangerous situation in the first place.
The crucial distinction between jumping from planes and being assaulted is that one is typically voluntary, while the other typically isn't.
This study lumped both 'first encounters' (can't think of a better term right now) with encounters based on previous arguments (gun fight at high noon).
Those are very different types of gun crimes and should be treated differently. If both participants are armed and expecting a fight than neither should qualify as defensive use of a gun.
This study lumped both 'first encounters' (can't think of a better term right now) with encounters based on previous arguments (gun fight at high noon).
Those are very different types of gun crimes and should be treated differently. If both participants are armed and expecting a fight than neither should qualify as defensive use of a gun.
Agreed; that's an important point.
Also, here's an article with further criticism of that study. They make the point that I guess was intended in the parachute analogy -
Their study assessed risk for being assaulted and then shot, a compound outcome event whose second element (being shot) is not inevitable given the first (being assaulted). Persons who were assaulted but not shot are not studied. We do not know whether any association between firearm possession and their outcome measure applies to assault, to being shot given an assault, or both.
My point is that if there are causal links, then it's a bad outcome whether the increased probability comes via increased likelihood of being assaulted, or increased likelihood of being shot conditional on being assaulted (shot | assaulted).
That being said, confounding factors definitely seem more likely in the case of assault than in the case of shooting | assault, and so including the data on assaults that did not involve shooting would definitely have been useful.
I would expect studies to show that if your attacker pulls a gun first you pulling a gun defensively will result In you being shot. It makes sense because the attacker would (rightly) assume you intend to shoot them even if the attacker only wanted to use the gun to threaten you.
I would like to see data on defensive gun use where the attacker is using something other than a firearm while committing the crime. If he has a knife and I pull a gun what are the odds on my being stabbed or shot?
Personally, I'm having a hearty laugh at these clowns in Washington, so scared of a dumb little assault rifle. They've probably never even SEEN a gunsword, and have no idea what a properly trained wielder can do with one.
Personally, I'm having a hearty laugh at these clowns in Washington, so scared of a dumb little assault rifle. They've probably never even SEEN a gunsword, and have no idea what a properly trained wielder can do with one.
My local paper printed a letter from someone who is supposed to be pro-gun but the letter is so full of bat shit crazy conspiracy nonsense that it ends up being pro gun control. Makes me wonder if the paper picked this letter on purpose because the paper is pro gun control.
My local paper printed a letter from someone who is supposed to be pro-gun but the letter is so full of bat shit crazy conspiracy nonsense that it ends up being pro gun control. Makes me wonder if the paper picked this letter on purpose because the paper is pro gun control.
Mew Milford Spectrum. Checked their online page and could not find the opinion piece I am refering to posted.
Not what I was looking for. I was thinking about their parent company. They're owned by Hearst, who don't seem to have a political affiliation. They own A+E, Oprah, a shit ton of newspapers the only one of which I recognize being the SF Chronicle, and they're buddy buddy with Disney. The motive behind printing that letter is probably the editors politics, rather than a larger scale corporate puppet show (which is a great name for an album). You'd know their bias since you read them regularly.
Does anyone else think that by dramatizing all of these shootings we're just making it more enticing for other would-be shooters to actually go and do something horrible like this? Obviously we shouldn't ignore them but the way we keep going on about them so much more now than ever just makes me think that maybe it just makes the crazies just want to do it more.
Semiautomatic rifle found at the scene, AP is reporting.
Speaking of that, I heard the CT shooter had used hand guns, not the AR-15 pattern rifle originally reported. Any truth?
Pretty sure that's not the case. The only sources I could find for it were either conspiracy theory derp, or people asking if conspiracy theory derp was true.
Semiautomatic rifle found at the scene, AP is reporting.
Speaking of that, I heard the CT shooter had used hand guns, not the AR-15 pattern rifle originally reported. Any truth?
Pretty sure that's not the case. The only sources I could find for it were either conspiracy theory derp, or people asking if conspiracy theory derp was true.
I'm not sure, this MSNBC video seems to say only pistols were used. I'm not sure if there have been further updates since this though.
I'm not sure, this MSNBC video seems to say only pistols were used. I'm not sure if there have been further updates since this though.
That's a report from the day after, and most of those details are now confirmed to be incorrect. He did have four guns, but it was two pistols, a shotgun, and a rifle, and he left his shotgun in the boot of his car while carrying the pistols and rifle inside of the school. They also found spent .223 brass all over the areas of the school that he traveled through. I'm pretty sure they haven't found evidence that he used any of his firearms besides his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle.
Wikipedia says that he used one of the handguns to shoot himself, which makes sense - I don't know much about guns, but shooting yourself in the head with an AR-15 sounds a lot harder than it's worth when you have a handgun.
Wikipedia says that he used one of the handguns to shoot himself, which makes sense - I don't know much about guns, but shooting yourself in the head with an AR-15 sounds a lot harder than it's worth when you have a handgun.
Comments
There is a possible flaw in that approach, but it's not the one you suggest. The important comparison is how likely you are to get shot with a gun vs how likely you are to get shot without one. That establishes a correlation between gun ownership and risk of getting shot.
The flaw is this - it may be the case that people who are at greater risk (due to where they live or who they know) are more likely to own a gun. However, that flaw can still be fixed (and likely is fixed in decent studies) by controlling for other risk factors.
Moreover, if you read the actual study Jacob Sullum was referring to, you will find that the study clearly states that they did, in fact, include confounding factors in their modelling process - "We conceptually separated confounding variables in the association between victim gun possession and gun assault into individual and situational characteristics, both of which feed the eventual victim–offender interaction that results in gun assault."
It's not the parachute (or gun) but the activity that may cause death. Parachutes don't kill people sitting on their sofa watching TV neither will a gun sitting on your coffee table suddenly animate on its own and shoot you.
Do you know of any gun studies that control for those negative factors, because I do not.
Controlling for confounding factors is standard fare in any half-decent study. As I said before, the study your parachute quote was about did, in fact, include such an analysis, hence making the parachute quote rather misleading.
Also, another reason the parachute analogy fails is that even if a gun may improve your chances of not getting fucked up in a dangerous situation (which in itself is subject to doubt), it's not worth it if that is outweighed by a greater likelihood of your getting into that dangerous situation in the first place.
The crucial distinction between jumping from planes and being assaulted is that one is typically voluntary, while the other typically isn't.
Those are very different types of gun crimes and should be treated differently. If both participants are armed and expecting a fight than neither should qualify as defensive use of a gun.
Also, here's an article with further criticism of that study. They make the point that I guess was intended in the parachute analogy - My point is that if there are causal links, then it's a bad outcome whether the increased probability comes via increased likelihood of being assaulted, or increased likelihood of being shot conditional on being assaulted (shot | assaulted).
That being said, confounding factors definitely seem more likely in the case of assault than in the case of shooting | assault, and so including the data on assaults that did not involve shooting would definitely have been useful.
I would like to see data on defensive gun use where the attacker is using something other than a firearm while committing the crime. If he has a knife and I pull a gun what are the odds on my being stabbed or shot?