I'll deal with the quote first, then tackle the rather good comments by y'all.
Sorry if someone already posted this, but this is ridiculous:
Yes, it is ridiculous. Here's why:
[quto]["Gun owners who carry concealed weapons or have confronted another person with a gun are more than twice as likely to drink heavily as people who do not own guns, according to a study by UC Davis researchers.[/quote]
Back when I dated a gal who attended UC Davis, when I was stationed in Sacramento, I met two professors from UC Davis. Both were jerks. Both were drinking. Both were at a bar. Both were in California. By gross statistical negligence I could conclude California professors who drink are jerks. That would, however, be an undeserved slam on my first profession which heavily involved the wonderful science of statistics, so I won't defame the practice of statistics by making such a ridiculous claim, particularly as I would have to violate many of the rigorous principles of statistics to do so.
Binge drinking, chronic heavy alcohol use, and drinking and driving were all more common among gun owners generally than among non-owners, even after adjusting for factors such as age, sex, race, and state of residence.
Correlation, not causation.
But alcohol abuse was most common among firearm owners who participated in gun-related behaviors that carry a risk of violence, which also included having a loaded, unlocked firearm in the home and driving or riding in a vehicle with a loaded firearm."
Correlation, not causation.
More churches in high crime areas. Same thing.
Exactly.
It's a ridiculous correlation.
The correlation is quite real. I would say it's a ridiculous conclusion. The article claimed, Wintemute is "one of the world’s foremost experts on gun-related violence." By whose standards? His? UC Davis'? His similarly statistically inept peers?
The linked article refers to Wintemute's article: "The article suggests several reasons why dangerous behavior involving alcohol and firearms might be linked." Yes, Wintemute's article does suggest that. The statistics, however, DO NOT. Wintemute has committed the grievous sin of inserting his own pre-conceived notions into the data. BAD JU-JU.
"“New and more comprehensive research is needed, since legislation authorizing the public carrying of loaded and concealed firearms has become almost universal in the United States,” said Wintemute."
No. What appears to be happening is that Wintemute is looking for a government grant to carry out ridiculously unnecessary research aimed at two things: 1) Inventing false "evidence" he can use as an anti-2A person to wrongfully mislead legislators; 2) Lining his pockets with your hard-earned tax dollars.
To that end, I ask you all to draft good, solid letters and send them to officials at UC Davis, the California Legislature, and your federal Congressmen, informing them just how out to lunch Wintemute's conclusions really are and asking them to please NOT waste our hard-earned tax dollars on such drivel.
"According to a 2004 study done by the Harvard School of Public Health, there are 260 to 300 million guns in civilian hands in the United States. The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center estimates that 32 percent of American households contain firearms."
It's closer to 51%, but what the hay - It's Chicago, and it's their "Opinion," so like ********, they have one too, and it stinks.
"Four states allow concealed guns in bars, provided the armed person does not consume alcohol which, noted Wintemute, seems difficult to enforce because the weapons are, by definition, concealed."
This is flat out incorrect. If they can't get well-known, easily-researched facts like this correct, even the raw data in the rest of the article becomes suspect. But oh! The article was written by Charles Casey, whose e-mail is @ucdmc.ucdavis.edu! Probably in the same pin-headed "UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program." How much you want to bet these two tried to get a journalist to write it, but no self-respecting journalist (even by today's shoddy standards) would touch it?
This report looks to be an instance of the logical fallacy "cum hoc ergo propter hoc". Here's the appropriate answer to BS like this: "Correlation does not imply causation."
Partly true. I spotted more than half a dozen logical fallacies in the article. The one that bobs to the surface is
Denying a Conjunct (Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism). Put simply, it goes along these lines: "It's never both sunny and overcast. It's not sunny, therefore, it's overcast."
Well no, it could simply be nighttime!
These are the sorts of mistakes made by non-statisticians (doctors are infamous for jumping to these conclusions) who enter the scene with pre-conceived notions and a noticeable lack of statistical skill. I can spot it because I studied statistics diligentyly, took a very difficult board exam and became a registered statistician. Unfortunately, such level of competence is not required for most PhD programs.
What about the fact those of us who have carry permits are far more law abiding than the general public
That quite true fact has apparently escaped Wintemute's research, along with dozens of other thought-provoking facts.
Besides what about the fact we live in america where A LOT of people own firearms. This study is like saying people who eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches on a regular basis consume more water than people who don't.
In all likelihood, the real correlation is that those who live in higher crime areas are more likely to carry firearms on a regular basis, and because they live in higher crime areas, are more likely to get into a scuffle. In both cases, it's the crime rate that drives (causes) both factors, not the gun ownership. We do know, for a fact, that as gun ownership goes up and gun laws are taken off the books, crime goes DOWN. Wintemute seems to have overlooked this little tidbit, as well.
How many felons do you know that have guns. They are including criminals and probably doing other things to bias the data. Its easy to have biased sample data; as long as they don't try hard for good data, it will probably look how they want.
I agree with your point 100%, Daylen!
Bottom line, Wintemute's comments are a joke. The entire article by Charles Casey is a joke. They're ignore other valid, pertinent data, and are a gross violation of sound statistical methods and principles.
I'll be writing the University on this matter, along with the California and U.S. legislators.