In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:23:46 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 16:12:07 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 21 Sep 2013 15:35:33 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:



No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

Can't extrapolate the data?


No, I don't choose to "extrapolate," since that yields an opinion or
attempts expand known data into an area not known so as to arrive at a
conjectural position.

No it doesn't. I didn't ask you to make an opinon, I asked you to
extrapolate. You yourself said it was "raw data".

In other words, I'm not going to perpetuate rumor or attempt to divine
tea leaves, so as to support a predisposed position.

No rumors involved. It's "raw data".

Besides, researchers have already crunched the existing data and found
it to support the following position:

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/

That's because there are no fewer guns. No one made anybody get rid of
what they have. You do realize, don't you, that most gun crimes are
committed with guns that were either stolen or borrowed from a legal
owner, don't you?

"The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent."

THAT is raw data.

But finding correlation and drawing a final conclusion, without
establishing causation is sophomoric, at best.

I suggest you review the following paragraph on cause and effect:
http://www.vassarstats.net/textbook/ch3pt2.html

I suggest you read the whole thing instead of just cherry picking one
paragraph. THAT is "sophomoric, at best".

Have it your way, you are going to believe what the DNC tells you to
believe, anyway.

I'm sorry, please show where the DNC was involved in the above study, I
must have missed it.

In article , says...

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:18:45 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:43:50 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association?s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable ? the percentage of a state?s suicides
committed with a firearm ? that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

?In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown ? many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,? said
Siegel in a statement.

?This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,? he said.

?It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.?

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?

No, John, not Loogy, but even he wouldn't be wrong to ask for a cite
to as stupid an assertion such as, "Researchers in the United States
claim to have established a convincing statistical link... "

Which researchers?
Claim?
Convincing statistical link?
Really?

I'd still like to see the citation that supports this silly
allegation.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

The data does not address the original premise of the thread.
They talk about the weapons used in the homicides/suicides but they do
not link it to firearm ownership overall.

Wait, if a person didn't "own" a firearm, how would he use it to commit
the crime?

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:32:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

The data does not address the original premise of the thread.
They talk about the weapons used in the homicides/suicides but they do
not link it to firearm ownership overall.

Wait, if a person didn't "own" a firearm, how would he use it to commit
the crime?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

It's Kevin.
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 10:32:40 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

The data does not address the original premise of the thread.
They talk about the weapons used in the homicides/suicides but they do
not link it to firearm ownership overall.

Wait, if a person didn't "own" a firearm, how would he use it to commit
the crime?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

It's Kevin.

Oh, so YOU'RE kevin, got it....

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:24:29 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:40:55 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

That is what I thought. No cite to the "study" described, just raw
data from the CDC.

At least you can look at the raw data and interpret it yourself. Maybe you can even find the
rise in the data.

The data does not address the original premise of the thread.
They talk about the weapons used in the homicides/suicides but they do
not link it to firearm ownership overall.

Wait, if a person didn't "own" a firearm, how would he use it to commit
the crime?

But it doesn's say anything about the majority who do own a gun and
never commit a crime with it and that is the point.
A lot of those people may not admit owning a gun to an anonymous
person on the phone. You understand that. You won't even tell us your
first name because of your paranoia..

I won't tell someone my first name on usenet because it's just plain
stupid to do so. Please show me ONE cite that says that it's an
intelligent and prudent thing to do so, and no one should worry about
doing so.