When did you use your gun defensively?

Not hard at all, it is simply doing a copy and paste of your incorrect thoughts and words and you do the work for me.

 

How was my conclusion false?
From source provided:
"Although gun ownership is associated with positive feelings about firearms within “gun culture” (Pierre, 2015; Kalesan et al., 2016; Metzl, 2019), most research comparing gun owners to non-gun owners suggests that ownership is rooted in fear. While long guns have historically been owned primarily for hunting and other recreational purposes, US surveys dating back to the 1990s have revealed that the most frequent reason for gun ownership and more specifically handgun ownership is self-protection (Cook and Ludwig, 1997; Azrael et al., 2017; Pew Research Center, 2017). Research has likewise shown that the decision to obtain a firearm is largely motivated by past victimization and/or fears of future victimization (Kleck et al., 2011; Hauser and Kleck, 2013)."

Also your lame defense that pepper spray is not pepper spray makes little sense and the disclaimer not to spray it in the face is probably so they won't get sued because where else are you going to spray it, on clothes? That won't stop grandma.

 

And you avoid what you know you cannot meaningfully respond to.

 

However the bottom line is per a recent 2020 analysis by the RAND Corporation.

"Anyone basing a gun control position on scientific evidence of any kind is building on sand. We have no useful empirical data on the subject, no body of work that rises above the level we would expect based on random chance, either for or against gun control measures. And the claim that there are "simple, commonsense" laws we could pass that would significantly reduce gun violence, if only we had the political will to go through with them, is simply false.

https://reason.com/video/2022/03/31/do-studies-show-gun-control-works-no/

 

What you are seeing here is correlation of firearm ownership with happiness and success.

People who take charge of their own destiny in careers and earnings are more likely to take charge of their safety as well. Successful folks that believe in personal responsibility earn more, are happier, and are more likely to take personal responsibility for their security as well as their income and happiness.

This shouldn’t be surprising.

 

Okay, change the subject....But I'm not taking a Libertarian's spin on the subject (they don't like laws), let's go to the actual Rand analysis....

Key Findings
Scientific evidence on gun policies' effects is modest but supports a few conclusions

• Of more than 200 combinations of policies and outcomes, surprisingly few have been the subject of methodologically rigorous investigation. Notably, research into five of the examined outcomes is either unavailable or almost entirely inconclusive, and three of these five outcomes represent issues of particular concern to gun owners or gun industry stakeholders.
• Available evidence supports the conclusion that child-access prevention laws, or safe storage laws, reduce self-inflicted fatal or nonfatal firearm injuries, including unintentional and intentional self-injuries, among youth.
• There is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws are associated with increases in firearm homicides and moderate evidence that they increase the total number of homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that state laws prohibiting gun ownership by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders decrease total and firearm-related intimate partner homicides.
• There is moderate evidence that waiting periods reduce firearm suicides and total homicides and limited evidence that they reduce total suicides and firearm homicides.
• No studies meeting the authors' inclusion criteria have examined the effects of gun-free zones, laws allowing armed staff in kindergarten through grade 12 schools, or required reporting of lost or stolen firearms.

Why is there a lack of research on the subject? There are lots of answers if you look.
"The U.S. has more gun deaths per capita than any of the world’s two dozen highest-income countries. Yet the government, at the behest of the gun lobby, limits the collection of data on gun-related deaths, prevents researchers from obtaining such data, and severely restricts funds for gun research, says Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s David Hemenway. It’s crucial, he argues, that scientists push back."
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/stop-suppression-gun-research/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nra-suppressed-gun-violence-research
https://www.nature.com/articles/546345a

 

Something I hear a lot from gun nuts is correlation is not causation. People who are better off may have more guns statistically, but they are probably happier because they are better off not because they own a firearm. The point you seemed to miss was there is a mismatch between subjective fear and objective reality. The reason they are armed.

 

Look at you, happily falling for yet another of the innumerable anti-gun talking points.

The fact the federal government cannot spend money to conduct this research has no effect on the fact the research -can- be done.
Thus, it does not explain the lack of research you claim because -anyone- can collect data and conduct research.

Try again.

 

What fear? The idea they are in fear is subjective opinion.

I NEVER said they are happier because they own a firearm. LOL.

Please educate yourself on what the terms correlation and causation mean.

 

And thus, the reason you repeatedly refuse to demonstrate the necessary relationship between strong gun laws in (x) and the supposedly lower rates of gun related violence found there -- you know you can only demonstrate correlation, and you know you cannot demonstrate causation.
That is, you know your arguments to that effect rest on post hoc fallacies.

And yet, you continue to make those arguments.

 

We hear this from scientists and statisticians a lot, too.

 

Is this the same David Hemenway from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health that funds, researches, publishes and maintains an extensive library of research on the subject?

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

Hell, the CDC and FBI have been collecting data for decades. What a lying POS he is.

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

David, if you need more money, ask your school's namesake for some:

https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2014/09/harvard-public-health-350-million-gift

 

My bad, you never suggested they are happier because they own a firearm, they have one because they fear for their safety.

So, the consensus from the right, despite opinions from experts on the subject, studies on gun violence are not done because...because? Laziness?

 

YOU claim the lack of research is -because- the federal government is unable to fund federal studies.
Onus is on YOU to demonstrate this -federal- failure to fund -federal- studies explains the lack of NON-federal studies
And you know you cannot.

The fact the federal government cannot spend money to conduct this research has no effect on the fact the research -can- be done.
Thus, it does not explain the lack of research you claim because -anyone- can collect data and conduct research.

 

Can you offer something besides your opinion to support the idea they fear for their safet?

 

Prove the fact the federal government cannot spend money to conduct this research has no effect on the fact the research -can- be done.

 

Here read this.

 

YOU claim the lack of -private- research is a result of the federal government inability to fund -federal- studies.
Onus is on you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the lack of -federal- funding for -federal- research and the absence of -private- research.
And you know you cannot.
Try again.

 

Let's go back to the original quote:

"Yet the government, at the behest of the gun lobby, limits the collection of data on gun-related deaths, prevents researchers from obtaining such data, and severely restricts funds for gun research, says Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s David Hemenway. "

Below is a link to a list of studies written and published by your expert David Hemenway of the Chan School of Public Health, endowment of $350M, at Harvard University, endowment $42B.

I stopped counting gun control related studies at 100, and that was at study #178, meaning over half of the studies he's published were on gun control.

Either he's suffering from dementia and has forgotten that he wrote and published all of those studies, or that he doesn't actually consider them to be valid gun control studies and therefore doesn't count them (I'm inclined to agree) or he's simply lying to a willfully ignorant public for the purpose of misrepresenting the truth in an attempt to get more money for more studies.


https://connects.catalyst.harvard.edu/Profiles/display/Person/5628

 

The consensus is.....
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1487470
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna50458255
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/health/gun-violence-research-cdc.html
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/oct...as-suppressed-gun-violence-research-1.4343359
https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/

 

Nothing in these links demonstrates the necessary relationship between the lack of -federal- funding for -federal- research and the absence of -private- research.
Disagree?
Copy and paste the text to that effect.

YOU claim the lack of -private- research is a result of the federal government inability to fund -federal- studies.
Onus is on you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between the lack of -federal- funding for -federal- research and the absence of -private- research.
And you know you cannot.
Try again.

 

Here's Garen Wintemute's list of gun violence studies:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=garen+wintemute[Author]

Here's Daniel Webster's list of studies on gun violence.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Webster+D&cauthor_id=27294969

That's hundreds of studies from just three researchers, and you still seem to want to ignore the evidence of a significant amount of studies on gun violence to instead believe some of these same people whose livelihood depends upon more research money. It's hard to believe that a researcher who has published greater than 100 studies on a subject doesn't have the necessary data or funding available.

 

Oh. Ok. You are parroting the the opinions of someone else. I saw you post this opinion piece earlier in the thread. I was hoping for something besides opinions. You do not have evidence, just opinion based on a selection of sketchy “studies”.

My favorite cite from the essay is this one.

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.n...UEO8yug1Sg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

The author picks 4 white guys willing to be interviewed and interviews them and a bunch of their friends also willing to be interviewed (white and a couple Hispanics). Because they say things like “bad neighborhoods” and wanting to protect their children the “study” concludes gun ownership and concealed carry is driven by a combination of hero fantasy and bigotry! Of course no other demographics that own and carry firearms were interviewed….

Now that it’s firmly established your cite is an opinion piece based on “research” that is narrow and biased let’s move on to the “fear” part.

Your essay posits fear is the motivation for gun ownership. Ok. So I can write an essay lambasting demographics that own swimming pools. I can use accepted terms like status anxiety and claim fear drives people to install pools. For people that don’t know drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury deaths in children under 5. We can make the same case that fear is resulting in children’s drowning deaths the same way the author of your essay claims fear results in firearm deaths.

We can say the facts are clear that owning a pool drastically increases the odds of your young child drowning. We can say anyone who owns a pool or refuses to give up their pool when presented with this fact must be psychologically disturbed to take such a known risk with very little concrete reward outside personal pleasure.

Both the pool and firearm fear scenarios are patently absurd and based on cherry picked stereotypes, biased personal opinions, and personal differences in chosen recreational activities.

Then you also have to consider if fear drives every decision you make. Do you have a lock on your door because you are a maladjusted fearful person? Do you support local law enforcement or do you chant “fry ‘em like bacon”? If you support them, is it out of irrational fear? Is it illogical for you to support police to protect your family? Do police officers carry guns because they have hero fantasies or because they are bigots?

 

So you agree you wouldn't need a gun for your safety if you did not fear for your safety?

 

I’m saying you are misunderstanding the term “fear”. I don’t fear dying but I’ve taken steps to provide for my wife if I die. I don’t fear my house burning down but it’s insured and I keep a fire extinguisher in the room where I have my wood stove.

I’m saying by your logic you would hate cops if you didn’t fear for your safety. You would try to get rid of fire departments if you didn’t fear fire.