It’s Okay To Be An Idiot If You’re A Gun Controller
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 1 month ago
Victims of gun violence are not just the people in direct range of bullets. They’re also those on the periphery.
Almost every single American—99.85%—will know at least one victim of gun violence during his or her lifetime, a recent analysis in the journal Preventive Medicine estimates.Around 30,000 gun-related deaths and 80,000 non-fatal injuries occur annually in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A study published in the American Journal of Medicine earlier this year showed that Americans were 10 times more likely to die as a result of a firearm compared with residents of 22 other high-income countries. Of all firearm deaths in all these countries, more than 80% occur in the US.
The researchers combined two kinds of data to establish the full scope of the effects of gun violence. First, they collected estimates of direct victims of gun violence—fatal and non-fatal gun injury rates in 2013 at the national level—from the CDC. Second, they tried to calculate the size of the average American’s social network based on data from previous social network studies.
The researchers made additional assumptions, such as that gun violence happens to anyone at random, so all individuals face same risk. In reality, of course, some people are much more likely to be shot than others, but the thinking here is that, when averaged across the entire US population, everyone’s likelihood of experiencing gun violence is about the same.
Sounds awful doesn’t it? High income, sophisticated country, and all that. The deaths aren’t concentrated in the inner city where the collectivists have created an uneducated and feral population of killers demanding the next handout.
Oh wait. There’s that. And how does the author deal with this issue? By saying, “In reality, of course, some people are much more likely to be shot than others, but the thinking here is that, when averaged across the entire US population, everyone’s likelihood of experiencing gun violence is about the same.”
I’ve never read such a nonsense statement in my life masquerading as journalism and analysis. Some people are much more likely to be shot than others. But the assumption is that everyone’s likelihood is about the same. No shit. You can’t make this stuff up.
The author contradicted the premise for the analysis, and then restated the premise. But if it’s to support gun control, that’s okay. Because it’s okay to be an idiot if you’re a gun controller. No one will call you out for what you are, not even an editor.
On October 27, 2016 at 12:00 am, Phil Ossiferz Stone said:
Uh… the only victims of gun violence I know are military vets.
On October 27, 2016 at 5:58 am, Lee Manevitch said:
Well the author did a perfect job of describing what an average is, I’ll give her that.
On October 27, 2016 at 8:38 am, Fred said:
Mumbo Jumbo, pseudo scientistically, mashed up, uncorrelated let alone causal data.
Likely to be friends of Al Gore – look at this fake graph, all the polar bears will be dead in 5 minuets. They should just use Gore’s data and change every 5th word to gun. Done.
On October 27, 2016 at 9:32 am, Ned Weatherby said:
Dear mainstream media – everyone hates you because you lie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpLAzAZXi2A
NB – bad language..
On October 27, 2016 at 11:23 am, Archer said:
No one will call you out for what you are, not even an editor.
That would, no doubt, be a case of the pot calling out the kettle for being black. The editor is at least as much a gun controller as the “journalist”.
As to the “statistics”, I must be in that extreme minority who doesn’t know anyone who’s been shot or shot at, or is related in any way of which I’m aware to someone who’s been shot or shot at (not counting friends and relatives in the military, all of whom made it home safely, praise God). I imagine most people here are, by some bizarre coincidence, also in that same extreme minority.
(As an aside, I do have a cousin who died of “baseball bat violence”, but I don’t suppose that counts, either. “Thank goodness nobody had a gun; somebody could have gotten hurt!”, right? [/sarcasm])
The only other possibility is that the statistics are crap, but that would mean the “journalist” is *gasp* wrong!
On October 27, 2016 at 1:09 pm, Pat Hines said:
The Gun Confiscation Lobby, never in doubt, always wrong.
On October 28, 2016 at 6:19 pm, Michael Schlechter said:
Articles like this leave me embarrassed to be a part of the medical profession. Unfortunately, many mainstream medical journals (think New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, etc) have become leftist public health rags with only a modicum of medical science. My interest in these dropped off when they started advocating for single payer Healthcare. I guess the American Journal of Medicine is looking to join that club.