Interesting paper. My first thought was that it would be impossible to distinguish causation from correlation, but it looks like they definitely tried. That is, how do you account for the fact that "people want to kill you" increases both the likelihood carrying a gun and of being shot. In Pearl's terminology, have they really calculated the effect of do(gun) instead of just (gun)?

Skimming the paper, it looks like they paired shooting victims with demographically similar control subjects. While the overall conclusion seems plausible (gun possession causes an increase rather than decrease in risk of being shot) this approach seems really hard to do correctly. Are you familiar enough with their methodology (and with the causative pitfalls involved) to discuss it?

No one was bitten by a shark who never entered the water either. There is more to the gun control debates than single-input statistics like the one you cited.

Not entirely true.

>"A fisherman was attacked by a shark after he hauled it into his boat to pose for a commemorative picture.

>Angler Stephen Perkins, 52, got more than he bargained for when he hauled the fish on board his boat 'Serenity' off Lundy Island, Devon.

>As he was preparing to unhook the fish, it sank its teeth into his wrist leaving him needing re-constructive surgery. It has earned him an unlikely place in history as the first documented case of a man being bitten by a Blue Shark off British waters."

And if we include dead sharks -

>"There have, however, been several people injured by sharks on land including a landlady in Kent who was hit by a set of shark jaws which fell off the wall of her pub and a man whose arm was trapped inside the jaws of a dead shark he was transporting on ice after he stopped his van suddenly sending the carcass flying through the air, snapping its jaws shut on his arm."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3350690/Man...

I suppose that this goes to prove the GP's argument?

This is honestly one of the most hilarious counter-examples I've ever read.

>I suppose that this goes to prove the GP's argument?

Nahh, if I was doing that I'd probably have pointed out that per capita, people are twice as likely to be shot to death by a toddler in the US as by a cop in the UK.

I was merely taking the golden opportunity to be very silly about sharks.

Well, it worked, I guess?

Have you just had those waiting around for the perfect moment or did you just go out and find them?

A little bit of column A and a little bit of column B. I had a vague memory of some guy getting bitten in a boat, then added google.

The people who have toddlers and don't use high shelves with no crawl-up access, or something to shove toward the shelf to crawl up to it, should be shot and killed by toddlers.

Say hello to Darwin for me.

All very well, however really a lot of the people shot are kids, random visitors, the toddler themselves or other toddlers. Toddlers don't tend to go hunt down the legal owner to enact some sort of darwinian karma, weirdly enough.

Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns in a society is strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as well as indirectly (i.e. more violent police raids because they assume residents to be armed).

Taking your shark tank metaphor, some people believe it‘s simply not possible to remove guns from a society, which is untrue as well, as the recent example of Australia shows.

Heck, lots of people in Germany used to have a gun in WW2, while in 2011, German police shot a whole of 85 bullets in total. Which, incidentally, is exactly one bullet less than Texan police emptied into a single, unarmed suspect after a car chase in the same year. Well, you get what you vote for.

Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate and yet a very low homicide rate. It turns out that it’s complex, like every other political issue.

I am neutral / undecided on the gun ownership issue but simplifying and using misleading information doesn’t help anyone.

Could it be that people there are simply more responsible/comfortable in life in many ways that US etc citizens are not?

Right, but Switzerland still has the draft, and consequently more awareness about gun safety among owners, as well as inflated gun ownership statistics because you are required to take your gun home with you. And while guns are relatively easy to buy, ammunition is much more controlled.

Switzerland also has a lot more social security than the US. I agree that it's more complex than "guns are bad", but using Switzerland as an argument for gun ownership is just glossing over the details to come up with an artificial example where gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence.

> come up with an artificial example where gun ownership doesn't result in increased violence.

Though I do not concede the use of the word "artificial" as correct in your sentence, bringing in the Swiss data point is incredibly relevant in response to a claim that "Actually, no, study after study shows that the amount of guns in a society is strongly correlated to its homicide rate, both directly as well as indirectly."

Some of the things you said are neither here nor there. You shouldn't just mention a random police shooting (note: unarmed != unjustified) or allegations of voter irresponsibility without describing how that supports your claims.

I'm not sure I follow this analogy, unless you're supporting their position?

I too found the analogy interesting. I think the idea is whether or not to "outlaw" the water where the shark swims.

This research doesn't account for most defensive firearms use, in which the gun isn't actually fired, but is "brandished" to deter the threat. When defined correctly, defensive gun use is actually several times greater than negligent discharges, assaults, homicides, and even suicides by gun combined.

Anecdata: I was talking to a cousin of mine at a family reunion. He carries a handgun (legally) and is familiar with the proper use and handling of guns.[1] He told me that he had only ever had to draw his gun twice (gun held at the side pointed down at the ground, not raised, not aimed) and that was enough to calm the situations down. I could see his relief.

I don't know how much statistics can help with decisions (like "Should I own a gun?") when so much of the "on the ground" events depend on the character of the person carrying.

[1] Not to brag, but uh, he can shoot the pips out of a playing card while riding by on horseback. He enters contests and such. ;-)

That paper is interesting, to say the least. I don't think that the statistic that you pulled represents everything here.

Things I noticed in the paper:

However, compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking (Table 1).

Okay, so it's more likely for people to be shot in poorer neighborhoods, and especially when they're in the vicinity of things that generally involve gangs and other organized crime groups. Carrying a gun, especially an unconcealed one, may be an indicator, intentional or not, of alignment with a party here. Not unsurprising, unfortunately.

In the cases of unprovoked, one-sided violence, or the threat of it, (such as kidnapping, armed robbery [including "pickpocketing"], I think I would probably want to have some ready form of self-defense, be that being physically fit and knowing MMA, carrying around one of those Hello Kitty shank things, carrying a concealed knife, or running some flavor of concealed-carry (please, oh please, do not stick your gun in your purse / backpack).

On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a surefire defense against a dangerous environment, should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.

Okay, so people who think that having a shooty-bang is a sure-fire way to not get shot have another think coming. And? The 4.46 times as likely to get shot statistic feels a little bit off, and I personally think that it needs more unpacking. What percentage of those individuals affiliate with syndicated crime? How many people in the list were involved somewhere in the process of procuring or consuming drugs? These feel like huge stats that are just missing.

Personally, what I would like to research is how many times that guns have reduced the number of casualties in bad situations.