Australia whats up with this?

I don't ignore it - and have often addressed it in the past - what I object to is the cherry picking from this paper. Now tell me - what do YOU think it says??

But let me do a real academic critique on this paper

A) what peer review did it undergo?
b) has it ever been accepted for publication? (or is it merely an unpublished masters paper or a pseudo paper done for a "think tank" for hire)
c) It's conclusion was based on an erroneous assumption - that the buy back was the central thrust of the government's incentive
d) They used a very long time series which spanned multiple legislative and cultural changes in Australia but then used other points of comparison as well
e) The actual data time post buy back is was limited to an eight year span - results might be different now http://www.ssaa.org.au/media-monito...researcher-wang-sheng-lee-buy-back-paper.html
f) Paper utilised a complex and complicated statistical analysis - which further questions why it was not peer reviewed
g) no definition of counterfactual data for the null hypothesis http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jphp/journal/v30/n3/full/jphp200926a.html
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/australia

So,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,??

 

And therein lies the rub for you...Mother Jones=OK as long as it agrees with you, Science...not so much............. sorry I'm not impressed

 

Please illustrate how my response was off-topic.

I'm married to one, and my kids have dual-citizenship. Are you?

 

This entire thread seems well summarized by the link below:
https://theconversation.com/faking-...-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

 

No - quality referenced materials = OK but I will respond like with like. If the person who I am debating uses "AmericanStinker" or "Worldnutdaily" or even "prisonplanet" then I will reply with Mojo or a well referenced blog and STILL be at a higher level because I pick articles that are REFERENCED to academic studies wherever possible

BTW I noticed you did not address my critique of the paper or even any of the points I made

 

Yup! Been going on at least 12 years now
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Started with Email rumours but became blog posts. But the most amusing of all was the Twonk who posted an excerpt from a newspaper quoting the above email as part of a "news story" - yep! you guessed it! There are some lazy journalists out there!

 

Yet austrailias crime rate with guns and violent crimes continue to rise...WOW...just WOW....BTW SNOPES???? sheesh

 

Posted snopes - which again you dismiss without rebuttal - because I wanted to show how long the same old same old misleading and ridiculous "data" have been soiling the internet

But heck - any site is better than "Americanstinker"

 

Do you understand how SNOPES works?

 

sure do and I understand their credibility has been called into question on more than one occasion....Facts are facts though....crime violent crime and gun crime is rising in austrailia...no dispute eh?

 

Got a better source of your "facts" than the last because I have discredited that one pretty well

Even started a thread about it a while back
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=299671&highlight=australia

 

So am I to understand that this biased, cherry picking article debunks all other biased, cherry picking articles? One thing I wonder regardless of who's "facts" you believe....For every person miraculously saved due to a lack of firearms, How many people have died or been raped because they lacked a means to effectively defend themselves..? Best case scenario it's a wash? Or is using a gun for self defense just a myth?

 

Well we know firearm self defense is not a myth. As a firearm self defense instructor I hear about these cases all the time. On another thread I posted about 30 instances of firearm self defense cases. I could have posted many more but I got tired of typing.

 

Well dang, I like this post

 

In line with population growth, but still nowhere near as bad as we experience in the US... no dispute eh?

 

Fewer than you think but again depends on your source - if it is the NRA of course……

but analysis of the facts shows

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406

You are safer without a gun

 

you are dead damned wrong and that is all there is to that

 

The fact that you don't WANT something to be true doesn't make it any less of a fact.

 

First off, thanks for a response! Other than a few "likes" (which I also enjoy), seems like everyone ignores newbies (low post count) in fear of scaring them off or something?

Actually not an NRA member. There seems to be a lot of debate weather or not they truly support open carry. While I strictly conceal carry, I realize many people and organizations prefer open carry, as is they're right.

Interesting read, but 78-83? really? If I am reading that article correctly, It should not be possible for me to spend hours posting link after link of successful self defense stories. Yet I could in fact spend hours linking to hundreds of such stories. One thing to keep in mind In a case where a weapon is merely brandished, stopping any crime without a shot fired police reports are rarely filed. (admittedly this is something much harder to prove).

I'll just take this opportunity to share this little morsel of information. With a much larger population, and far, far more guns.....

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak

 

And here is where I teach you,or at least attempt to - sorry, the difference between research and opinion. Let us say you want to buy a car - which are you going to believe the testimonials the the salesman hands you or the research papers published in motoring magazines?

This research looked at 743 firearm deaths - that is a good "population size" for the research and does help to eliminate some statistical bias seen in smaller samples - such as individual newspaper reports

They eliminated incidents which did not occur within the residence to minimise bias again. The results showed that the media coverage of firearm protection, which is almost unique to America is not reflected in reality

Oh! And your trend graph - irrelevant to the discussion as the rate of firearm homicide is multifactoral

 

I am sorry, but it seems to me they took data from over 3 decades ago. Took a sample size more fitting to the number of people killed with hammers, threw out anything that didn't support they're hypothesis and printed exactly what they wanted.

Why throw out hundreds, if not thousands of individual reports? And exactly what is biased about defending yourself inside your home?

According to that article it should be statistically impossible for me to know anyone that has used a gun in self defense and lived, but I do intact know 2........although one wad defense against a bear, so may not count.

I have also heard home invasions recorded live with 911 operators, while people defended themselves successfully while waiting for authorities to arrive.

 

It is old data because the NRA effectively stopped research from the CDC after this paper was published. And no your contention does is not supported by the methodology shown in the research paper

And this is only ONE of a number of studies - for which I have links

They did not "throw out" those reports. They took a random sampling of incidents removed those that did not occur in the home (i.e. were more likely to be street shootings) and analysed those that DID occur in the home.

No it would not count because this was based on human casualties

The research paper is not denying that such incidents occur - it is merely showing that the opposite, you will be harmed or killed by the gun in the home, is far more likely.

 

This seems to take us dangerously close to tin-foil hat territory. I am almost afraid to ask what makes you think the NRA has any such power over the CDC.

The last, albeit unrelated graph I posted was from the CDC covering the years between 1993-2010.

Ok, they "removed" data. They also skewed the data by concentrating on incidents that involved casualties. In a great number if reports either no one was injured or a shot even fired.

It is smart really, if I wanted to prove how dangerous a gun is, I too would choose incidents that only involved a casualty and firearm.

 

It has political power in the form of funding http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

IF you, like me, believe in true freedom of speech, this should send a shiver down your spine.

Hmmmm - yes and remember "Correlation does not equal causation". Does a rise in hem lines rise with the stock market - does one cause the other?

yes because that data was outside the research parameters. If you are researching the incidence of heart attacks in people taking aspirin you would not include people who are also taking a Statin because this would influence the outcome. The question was related to firearms inside the home - why would they include use of firearms OUTSIDE the home - your criticism is irrelevant and does not refute the findings

No they investigated casualties as an indicator of the totality. If you have research (other than Kleck because if you link to his rubbish paper I will show you EXACTLY how bad research can be) that shows use of firearms as protection that refutes this then post it

"Reports" from where - newspapers? Sorry old chap but that is NOT research. Do not confuse bad journalism with good research - particularly when false newspaper reports can and are used to bolster gun sales

Hmmmmm - again you are operating on the myth that just waving a gun means that a crime will be prevented

Prove that that happens - and I mean post research

Meanwhile some more research to think about

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Bit hard to argue with Harvard

You seem like an honest person and I doubt I will change your mind about owning or wanting to own a gun. What I want to do though is have you realise that many of the myths are exactly that and decide what to do despite the research.

I am not really anti-gun but I am, very decidedly anti-gun injury and will try to show how injury can and should be reduced

 

Research? Why not see first hand?....Komonews - West Seattle......In store security camera's. This happened in my very own state caught on closed circuit camera. If you watch the short video you can see the man did not even get a chance to "wave" his gun, and the criminal ran. You see, like you and I most criminals don't want to die. Makes much more sense for him to run.

I could post no less than 36 such incidents from my state alone over the last year. But you would dismiss it as meaningless advertisement for gun manufacturers since it has not been properly researched by the CDC or New England Journal of science?

While I do find this article interesting in the extreme, what makes an article from this journal anymore trustworthy than say, an article from a newspaper? Where's the research? While there may be some correlation between the NRA's political clout and the CDC's loss of funding...the author is the one drawing conclusions and doing so without much proof due to "risks".