Domestic abuse vs gun ownership- 6x more likely to be abused

[Haides]

Somebody just posted this on facebook:

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf


Obviously, the first thing I noticed was the source...

I didn't have time to read it, as I'm just now leaving work. Is it, in any way, related to Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s "study?"

Thoughts?

 

[danb]

keep the gun, leave the abuser. duh.

 

[Gbh]

The gun made him do it.

 

[Haides]

I know the picture is retarded. I was referring more to the linked source. Sorry, should've specified. Lol

 

[Docster]

I suspect the stats are true, however they are a little misleading. Yes, if there's a gun in a house there is a statistically higher chance of a woman (or anyone for that matter) being killed with that gun by their partner or intimate significant other if that other becomes violent; however if the gun wasn't already there, one is likely to be brought in. If not, another weapon used.

Although easy to say, most women in a battered situation just don't leave soon enough.....

 

[danb]

I know the picture is retarded. I was referring more to the linked source. Sorry, should've specified. Lol

the whole idea is retarded. What does this mean- get rid of the gun but stay with an abuser?

 

[cz27jim]

The most glaring thing about the picture is, "Where did the gun data come from?"
6x more like to be killed if there is a gun in the house. Hmmmm.... the pie chart doesn't say that the 10% killed by strangers were killed with guns. Nor does it say that the 64% killed by spouses/partners/family members were all killed by guns. Finally, it also does not address the question, if there were no gun in the house, does that mean that the spouse/partner/family member would not have killed the woman? If there were no gun, they wouldn't beat her to death? Wouldn't strangle her? Wouldn't use a baseball bat from the kid's closet?

It reeks of cherry picked numbers and conclusions not supported by the data.

 

[MikeTF]

It's clear to me ... ladies, get your own gun.

 

[AssMan]

in other news, I'm 6x more likely to get hurt when I'm not wearing bubble wrap.

 

[Haides]

I'm going to post my response to it soon... Anybody got anything you think I should add?

 

[Haides]

Okay, here is my response.

No, I never said they lie, per se. However it's very easy to twist numbers and misrepresent with half-truths and lies of omission. It's not ethically sound, but does that make it lying? Depends on your definition of lying, I guess. But that's not the point. The point is that it's very easy for a biased source to twist numbers to "prove" a point, such as Dr. Arthur Kellermann's "study" which said that having a gun in the house makes you 3x more likely to be murdered in your home. That study was debunked numbers times, but people still believe it. [EDIT: Well, Whaddya know? After reading your source, I saw that they actually used that in there. As Winston Churchill once said, a lie can make it halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on...] Posting stats from Bloomberg or the Brady Campaign would be like me posting stats from NRA... You can't trust stats that come from people who have skin in the game, you need unbiased, third-party sources, especially ones who do not advocate policy (such as the FBI Uniform Crime reports, which is why I use them).

Honestly, I find it strange that the gun is the focus of the picture, rather than the person being abused, as if a gun sitting in a closet somehow exudes an aura of violence that made him do it. Why is the focus not advocating women to get out of abusive relationships? If you can't trust the person you're with not to like, oh I don't know, KILL you, then why in the world are you even with this person? Sounds more like some life questions need to be evaluated here, not just desperately trying to grasp at straws and link anything you can to "guns did it!" Why focus on an inanimate object that has no will of it's own? What's stopping him from strangling her, or beating her with a baseball bat, or stabbing her with a knife? The implication is that the absence of a gun would have solved the problem ["This research suggests that limiting access to guns will result in less lethal family and intimate assaults."], which is quite strange, and intellectually dishonest. Limiting access to automobiles will also reduce deadly vehicular accidents. What's your [their] point?

An important rule to remember when discussing statistics is that association does not mean causation. For example: As ice cream sales rise, the number of drownings go up. Therefore buying ice cream makes you more likely to drown (misrepresentation). Just because there is a positive correlation between the number of ice cream sales and the number of drownings doesn't mean that ice cream *caused* someone to drown, it just means that it's summer time and people are more likely to buy ice cream and go swimming in the summer. There are always other variables that need to be accounted for, and the paper did not specify any of them nor did show the data that was used to come to these conclusions. I have to wonder, how many included in those statistics were women from the inner cities, living in high crime areas with men who were high school dropouts, and possibly even criminals, already predisposed to violence? It never even mentioned, for example, whether the guns used in said crime were even legally purchased or whether the abuser was already prohibited from owning firearms beforehand or not. These things are important to know in order to get a full picture of what's really going on, else you only see what they want you to see (lie of omission). This is one reason that I can't just say, for example, that since crime rates have either remained constant or gone down considerably in states that have passed Concealed Carry laws, Concealed Carry laws reduce crime. It might be true, it might not, but I can't just say that based on that one statistic, because association does not imply causation.

I could've sworn I had more to say lol. Oh well, I'm tired. If I think of anything else I'll post it.

What I do want to do though, to switch it up from our previous discussions, is to actually take the time to talk with you about the proposed solutions, because I'm not trying to say that this isn't a problem. Domestic abuse is a big deal, and it should (and can) be dealt with and done so in a way that keeps the safety of the abused in mind but doesn't put the law-abiding gun owners at risk either.

Oh, one thing I wanted to add, is that this completely leaves out the benefits of having a gun.

This is very good read on defensive gun uses from Dr. Gary Kleck, a self-proclaimed liberal and registered Democrat who set out to prove that gun ownership increased crime, but instead came to the opposite conclusions. From the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

Relevant Excerpt:
"Perhaps the most surprising finding of the survey was the large share of reported [Defensive Gun Use]s that involved women. Because of their lower victimization rates and lower gun ownership rates, one would expect women to account for far less than half of DGUs. Nevertheless, 46% of our sample DGUs involved women. This finding could be due to males reporting a lower fraction of actual DGUs than women. If a larger share of men's allegedly DGUs were partly aggressive actions, a larger share would be at the "illegitimate" end of the scale and thus less likely to be reported to interviewers. Further, women may be more likely than men to report their DGUs because they are less afraid of prosecution. Consequently, although there is no reason to doubt that women use guns defensively as often as this survey indicates, it is probable that males account for a larger number and share of DGUs than these data indicate."

http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm

(Yes, I know the link is to the Second Amendment Foundation's website, but it's just hosted there, they didn't do the research)

Hope I did okay. I'm a little tired at this time of night and not on top of my game. lol

 

[Markp]

Somebody just posted this on facebook:

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf


Obviously, the first thing I noticed was the source...

I didn't have time to read it, as I'm just now leaving work. Is it, in any way, related to Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s "study?"

Thoughts?

Ladies, the greatest threat to your safety is the person lying with ******** statistics!​

So let's look at the Bureau of Justice statistics a little more closely, because someone is lying with their statistics:

Victim/offender relationship, 1980–2008 http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Percent of homicides victim/offender relationship 1980-2008
Known: 63.1%
Unknown: 37.9% <- That's right nearly 38% of the time they didn't know if there was a relationship!

Percent of homicides with known victim/offender relationship 1980-2008
Nonstranger 78.1%
Stranger 21.9%

Total of either UNKNOWN OR DEFINITE STRANGER related murders from 1980-2008, 51.71%

Other acquaintance 49.4
Other family 12.4
Spouse 10.0%
Boyfriend/girlfriend 6.3

First of all, intimate partner violence was only responsible for 17.5% of all female murders in 2008.


Since the early 1990s, homicides for which the victim/offender relationships were unknown constituted the largest category of homicides (44% of all homicides).
Homicides by a friend/acquaintance or a stranger were more likely to involve a gun than those committed by an intimate or family member.

From 1980 through 2008--

The proportion of male and female intimate homicide victims killed with guns has decreased. <- What?!?

WARNING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT FIT THE LIBERAL NARRATIVE, TURN AWAY FROM YOUR COMPUTER NOW IF YOU ARE A LIBERAL


* In 1980, the majority (68.9%) of male intimate homicide
victims were killed with guns and a third (30.5%) were killed
with other weapons (knives, blunt objects, or personal
weapons).

* After 1980, the proportion of male intimate homicide
victims killed with guns gradually declined while the
proportion killed with other weapons increased. Since 2000,
guns have been less prevalent than other weapons in intimate
homicides against male victims.

* By 2008, a higher proportion of male intimate homicide
victims were killed with weapons other than guns (54.6%) than
with guns (41.9%).

* Female intimate homicide victims showed a similar pattern.
In 1980, two-thirds were killed by guns (69.5%) and less than
a third were killed with other weapons (28.9%).

* After 1980, the proportion of female intimate homicide
victims killed by guns decreased while the proportion killed
by other weapons increased, although guns were still the most
prevalent weapon used by intimate offenders against female
victims.

* In 2008, 53% of all female intimate homicide victims were
killed with guns while 41% were killed with other weapons.
Guns were the most frequently used type of weapon in
intimate homicides, but weapon type varied by relationship

Obviously in 6% of the cases, an unknown weapon was used, but nearly half the time it WASN'T a firearm!

Well obviously, leaving the abusive relationship sounds like the answer until you realize: "Of the total domestic violence homicides, about 75% of the victims were killed as they attempted to leave the relationship or after the relationship had ended." - as reported by a domestic violence shelter.

 

[Haides]

Bump for the non-nocturnal members.

Markp, Thank you for that! This is why I asked on this board.

 

[kohburn]

More than twice as many women are killed by a husband or intimate acquaintance than are killed by a stranger

so clearly we have to ban sex, since twice as many women are killed by people that they had sex with than people they didn't have sex with...

thank goodness that is not necessary since it is complete BS

intimate partner violence was only responsible for 17.5% of all female murders in 2008

 

[Haides]

I'm curious as to how the number of intimate partner homicides using a firearm compares to the national average of all homicides with firearms. I suspect its not far off (or possibly even less), making the number wholly unsurprising.

 

[randian]

The alternative explanation is that women are so safe from stranger violence that what's left can't help but be people they know.

Conversely, stranger violence against men is so shockingly high that violence by friends/acquaintances is pushed to the background.

Neither fits the narrative, so they'll be ignored.

 

[Les Gawlik]

So, I guess homeless women are safest of all.

 

[Glock30Eric]

Just reply with this picture:

If they don't get/understand the picture; then God have mercy on them on the day when Gov't go after them.

 

[zombiehunter]

and an abused woman who stays in a house with abuse fails at evolution

 

[Vjornaxx]

and an abused woman who stays in a house with abuse fails at evolution

Don't be so quick to judge the woman when she is the victim. It's not her fault she is being mistreated and shaming her into action is the worst way to deal with the situation. I have had a close family member experience abuse and she didn't tell anyone for the longest time because she was convinced it was her fault. She was so mentally beaten down that she thought if she changed her behavior, things would get better. Emotions and a broken sense of self worth will cloud judgement and it took the love of her family and friends to help her leave. It did not take attempting to make her feel more guilty - that type of thinking is the kind her ******* boyfriend had used to break her will.