http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/05/six-thousand-king-county-children-live-in-homes-where-firearms-are-stored-loaded-and-unlocked-and-other-details-from-public-healths-gun-viol Comments On: Six Thousand King County Children Live in Homes Where Firearms Are Stored Loaded and Unlocked (and Other Details from Public Health's Gun Violence Report) by Goldy en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by randoma]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:39:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:11:04 -0800 The Stranger Posted by clashfan]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2013 07:14:00 -0800 The Stranger It's not working. You're losing. Every time you open your mouths you dig yourselves deeper.

I know you're not listening to me. Just keep it up and watch what happens.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:34:56 -0800 The Stranger
Unfortunately the article where that quote comes from is only available to subscribers and doesn't show up in a search of a paid subscription to NEJM. Since I can't see the methodology they used, I'm unable to respond to the statistic. However, from the abstract, it appears that they include suicides in the statistic and I would absolutely agree that you are much more likely to commit suicide with a firearm if there is one in your house than if there is not. That does not mean that you won't commit suicide. It just means that you won't use a gun. And yes, I am fully aware that you are much more likely to be 'successful' in a suicide attempt with a firearm than with another method. I am also aware that the most effective method of suicide prevention is suicide outreach/hotlines/education and mental health availability.

"Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons"

Unfortunately, you can make the same argument for any major metropolitan area in the USA. So it would appear, at least in your opinion, that firearms are just as available everywhere, which I think only strengthens the case of wealth and economic inequality since areas with greater wealth/lower economic inequality have less violence. More telling is, as @53 points out, firearms access is pretty even across Seattle, yet areas with higher rates of firearms violence are coincidentally poorer areas.

Both the UK and Australia demonstrate that in the absence of firearms, people are still perfectly capable and willing to kill each other with sharp and blunt objects. At very similar rates to when they had easier access to firearms.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:44:27 -0800 The Stranger "Keep fucking that chicken."

Does that mean you now understand that correlation is not causation?
Even when the correlation is a tautology?

How about the fact that your claim of a "strong correlation" seems to be contradicted by wealth and economic inequality?
Does that make wealth and economic inequality more strong than "strong"?
Super strong?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:58:25 -0800 The Stranger
@51: "That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me." I have never denied that poverty and income inequality are factors in crime, violence, and gun violence. They are. So is being able to get a gun.

Look at one of the bullet points: "The odds of a homicide are 2.7 times higher in homes with firearms than in homes without." Are you suggesting that there is no relationship there? It is coincidence?

Re Chicago, "Strict gun control" does not equal "Fewer guns". You are talking about a city that is surrounded by areas with more lax restrictions and few, if any, controls on trafficking of weapons.

@52: There, there. Don't let the bad graph trouble you. Here, have a cookie.

@53: Bawk! Bawk!
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:46:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:42:59 -0800 The Stranger "That sounds like a strong correlation to wealth and lower violence to me."

If that were correct then the original article should show lower rates of gun violence in the wealthier sections of King County.
Such as Mercer Island, Bellevue, Redmond and so forth.
I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to see if the article shows that or contradicts that.

And, conversely, the areas of King County with the lowest income (and highest levels of income inequality) would show the highest rates of gun violence.
Again, verifying this is left as an exercise for the reader.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:37:05 -0800 The Stranger Posted by venomlash]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:34:11 -0800 The Stranger
Or compare Chicago, a place with very strict gun control laws, huge economic inequity and high rates of gun violence, to Seattle, which has relatively lax gun control, a fairly wealthy populace with relatively less economic inequity and fairly low rates of gun violence.

Or you can look at Australia where overall violence has risen per capita since their gun ban or the UK where, while the level of firearms related homicide has absolutely gone down, the level of overall homicide has not.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:24:45 -0800 The Stranger "'Correlation is not causation' is a common enough refrain."

That is because mistaking correlation for causation is a very common error.
And it is one that you are currently engaging in.

"It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist."
and
"Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."

They are only "impossible" if you are mistaking correlation for causation.
Which is the point behind them.
If there was causation then they would not be "impossible".

"The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, ..."

You have not shown that.
And you ignore every example that contradicts that.
Notably, Switzerland.

"... combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, ..."

That is the example I used to show the correlation.
So I'm guessing that the insults were not directed at the facts I was presenting.

"... is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation ..."

And again you skip any facts that contradict your claims so that you can attempt to confuse "correlation" with "causation" again.

Correlation (very basically) means that where you find X you also find Y (statistically).
Your example (which you took from me) is a tautology because GUN violence always involves GUNs.
That is the correlation.
Causation means that increasing X results in increasing (or decreasing) Y. Or the converse.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:24:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by I mean, where's the outrage over that?]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:20:11 -0800 The Stranger
But you recognize that it is a pointless comparison, right?

"Correlation is not causation" is a common enough refrain. But all that means is that merely showing a correlation is not sufficient, in and of itself, to demonstrate a causal relationship. It does not mean that a causal relationship cannot exist. (Which, frankly, is what our unbalanced friend seems to think it means. "They are correlated! Therefore they cannot be causally related!")

So, is declining IE use responsible for declining murder rates? No - if I wanted to prove it was, I'd have to show some mechanism connecting the two. I'd have to say "Well, IE sucks so bad that it drives some people to murder; as fewer people use it, fewer people are driven to murder, so murder rates decline." But that would be a specious argument.

The strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and gun violence, combined with the fact that you can't have gun violence without, you know, GUNS, is strongly suggestive of a causal connection that deserves more investigation - not just simple "Correlation is not causation" dismissal.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:42:58 -0800 The Stranger
http://twistermc.net/post/40950483763/in…
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:11:00 -0800 The Stranger
44 posts, and not ONE of them says anything about how awful and vague the graph at the top of the article is. "Firearm Homicide Rates by Age and Gender". Maybe the graph would be slightly useful if we knew whether the age and gender were of the VICTIM or the PERPETRATOR. Hell yes I mad.
Posted by venomlash]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:05:43 -0800 The Stranger "Your unhinged ramblings and demands for impossible proofs make it clear that discussing this with you is a total waste of time."

Just because you do not understand the difference between correlation and causation does not mean that the difference does not exist.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:03:35 -0800 The Stranger
@42: Yes, I remember that conversation. All I can say is that I interpret the data differently. I cannot see how it is possible - even while acknowledging other factors - to simply ignore the correlation between different levels of gun violence and gun ownership across jurisdictions that are broadly similar, culturally, economically, and politically speaking, such as the USA, Canada, the UK, and Australia.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:53:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:45:06 -0800 The Stranger
Err. That would probably be either me or fairly.unbalanced. There is no statistical evidence that there is a correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. We last discussed it here:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

Despite that, I would agree that some amount of regulation is needed. And as I've said several times before, I support all of the executive actions that Obama enacted in regards to Gun Control. I think that if you are qualified to own a firearm (not a criminal, not mentally unstable..etc) and have the education/training/knowledge to own one without injuring yourself or innocent bystanders, have the capability to safely store it..etc, there should be no reason why you can't.

Incidentally, my biggest issue with mandatory background checks on all firearms transfers is simply a monetary one. FFL's around me charge $30-60 for an FFL transfer. That is essentially a tax on transfers. I recently purchased a Ruger 10/22 receiver from an out of state seller. The receiver cost me $90. I then paid $35 for the FFL transfer. That works out to a greater than 35% tax. When you consider that the FFL, who is a non-law enforcement/government entity, basically has to make a 2-5 minute phone call and make two entries in his/her bound book to process a background check, the fee borders on usary. However, there is no restriction on what the FFL can charge.

In comparison, where I live, you are required to get an "emissions" check on any modern car every two years. (The service station basically hooks your car up to an ODBI scanner and prints out a page.) The service station is not allowed to charge you for the check, although it can charge you for any service you may need to bring your car into compliance.

If there is either a mandated (low) fee for private party background checks performed by an FFL or if the background check system was opened up to non-FFLs, I'd have no problem supporting a background check for all firearms transactions.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:40:24 -0800 The Stranger "Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork."

As I have posted before, in the 8th century there was zero GUN violence.
Mostly because GUNs had not been invented yet.
So of course there is a correlation between GUN violence and the possession of GUNs.

The problem is that you and the other anti-gun people take that correlation and attempt to claim causation.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:35:31 -0800 The Stranger
Well, on the flip side, we have people here arguing that "Guns are not the problem and in no way whatsoever contribute to the problem."

I have no disagreement with the statement that rates of crime and violence, including gun violence, are affected by a wide range of factors. These include many that you have pointed out, including availability of health care (particularly mental health) as well as income equality and poverty. I completely agree that these factors have an impact.

The evidence also shows that the overall availability of guns in a society has an impact. It is one of the factors.

A solution that simply tries to regulate gun ownership without addressing the other factors is incomplete. Similarly, a solution that tries to address the other factors without also considering gun regulation will be incomplete.

Now, I predict that someone will be on here shortly to tell me that there is zero correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Like fucking clockwork.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:09:24 -0800 The Stranger @37, "I think you may find that a lot of the people on the "anti-gun" side here don't actually support full bans and confiscation."

As long as the general attitude among the "anti-gun" side here is that, "Guns are the problem/main reason for violence. And guns have no value other than killing people.", I will have difficulty believing that. Because, if you really believe that guns cause violence/death/injury by their mere existence, then, if you are honest, nothing but a complete ban is reasonable.

Let's look at it another way - overall, homicides/firearm related deaths/injuries etc. have been trending downward, or have been stable, on a per capita basis. Let's say that tomorrow half the firearms in the USA are banned and that trend continues (but does not accelerate) much like what happened in Australia. The "anti-gun" side will claim that this trend was caused by the ban. However, you can't definitively make that claim. The trend existed pre-ban and continued at the same rate post-ban. However, the "anti-gun" side will use that claim to then enact more bans...etc. If you don't believe that, take a look at how many times "anti-gun" people use Australia and the UK to make their argument for a ban. (Even though there is not actually any evidence that either ban reduced overall violence/homicide rates.)

So while I don't agree with the NRA's stance, I can certainly understand why they have it.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:51:56 -0800 The Stranger Hell, yeah, get them while they are young. . . sign these youngsters up for the revolution, they've already have access to the weaponry! ! !
Posted by sgt_doom]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:44:55 -0800 The Stranger
I certainly don't. I'm looking at this situation from up here in Canada where we have a fairly comprehensive regulatory regime for gun ownership that is well short of a complete ban.

My impression, however, is that for a lot of people on the "pro-gun" side, any regulation - including mandatory education - is anathema. Regulation creates a barrier to gun ownership and will inevitably lead to some people who might own guns choosing not to, or being unable to. Which is bad because Second Amendment.

I'd be interested to hear if a few others around here agree with you as regards mandatory training for firearms owners.
Posted by Backyard Bombardier]]> Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:03:33 -0800 The Stranger