|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone.
|
On August 28 2014 14:57 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 13:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:38 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:31 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:22 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets. It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them. Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with? Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero. It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite. Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun? But he wasn't beaten to death. He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next. So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented. We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation. They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy. I definitely would be fearing for my life. I'm also not cocky enough to think I'd go full rambo when 20 guys start attacking me, and if I did own a gun, I'd probably fumble it pretty damn badly. And if I did actually did manage to draw it before they started beating me (because I doubt I'd be able to once they'd begun), with a whole biker gang surrounding me, there's no way in hell I'd believe I could stop them from drawing any guns of their own. The use of the gun in such a situation would not be to kill 20 bikers; it would be to scare them off. It's a deterrent, as I've said before. You're not going to start fucking with someone, even 20 on 1, if that person has a gun. Why would you risk death just to have fun, make a point or steal?
I wouldn't count on bikers not having guns. Being European, the amount of guns privately owned in the US makes me scared. The possibility of every thug having a gun and being able to shoot you at the slightest incentive (or even just at his whim) is really frightening. This makes me understand why people want to own guns themselves. And now, everyone has guns and its just too late. If you make laws somehow for a public disarmament and bring it through (I think impossible lol), gangsters have a monopoly of force.
As a side note: As a policeman in the US, arent you scared every day to go to work because you just might get shot at that day? oO
tldr: no solution
|
On August 28 2014 14:57 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 13:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:38 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:31 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:28 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:26 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 28 2014 13:22 Millitron wrote:On August 28 2014 13:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Or, you know, mob mentality kicks in and a group of 20 guys feel invincible because someone could be shot, but it won't be them. Then 10 of them draw their own guns in response and the entire family gets riddled with bullets. It does not work that way. If mob mentality really worked that way, mass shooters would never kill as many as they do, because their victims would bumrush them. Again, would you rather let them beat you to death than draw your gun and risk whatever hypothetical scenarios you can come up with? Mob mentality doesn't mean that everyone in a group becomes a super hero. It does mean that a group of 20 people who already have the herd mentality of causing violence are more likely to continue forward and escalate than turn 180 and start doing the exact opposite. Would you rather let them beat you to death than draw a gun? But he wasn't beaten to death. He did not know that he wasn't being beaten to death during the beating. In fact, for all he knew, his wife and daughter were next. So basically, the circumstance is not the false dichotomy of "gun or die" that you presented. We know that now. Hindsight is 20/20. You cannot tell me that you would not fear for your life in the same situation. They had just been chased for ~7 minutes by the bikers, who repeatedly tried to get into the SUV. Finally, the SUV gets stuck in traffic and the bikers immediately begin breaking the windows and slashing tires. If you wouldn't fear for your life in that situation, you're crazy. I definitely would be fearing for my life. I'm also not cocky enough to think I'd go full rambo when 20 guys start attacking me, and if I did own a gun, I'd probably fumble it pretty damn badly. And if I did actually did manage to draw it before they started beating me (because I doubt I'd be able to once they'd begun), with a whole biker gang surrounding me, there's no way in hell I'd believe I could stop them from drawing any guns of their own. The use of the gun in such a situation would not be to kill 20 bikers; it would be to scare them off. It's a deterrent, as I've said before. You're not going to start fucking with someone, even 20 on 1, if that person has a gun. Why would you risk death just to have fun, make a point or steal?
And now we're right back to my very first post on the last page.
It's called mob mentality. The more people there are, the less rational the entire group becomes, and the more likely every individual in the group is to stay the course. A single gun would probably deter one person, probably even three or four. But the more people there are, the more invincible each individual is going to feel, and twenty is a lot.
And from a pure probability perspective, I would never bet on twenty people intent on causing you harm all to suddenly turn tail instantly. It doesn't matter if five, or ten, or fifteen hesitate - it just takes one to pull a gun of his own, or two or three to jump you from behind. And since you've pulled a gun, now you've escalated a possibly lethal situation into a very probable one.
|
There's a lot of talk about how because US has many gangs, and gangs will have access to firearms regardless of gun laws, I'm genuinely curious why US has such an alarming gang problem. Other developed countries have gang problems, no doubt about it. But correct me if I'm wrong, it does seem like the gun ownership restrictions has reduced their lethality. I mean, they still do bad stuff, but the resulting fatalities aren't as high.
Are US gangs different? What do you think the US has not gotten right there? I mean, if you are saying guns aren't the problem, and the real problem is people using them, why are there more people who are trying to kill people in the US? And how should that be addressed, cos that sounds like the bigger problem if it's the root cause. I mean, there is no denying that US have higher murder rates than the rest of the developed world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, 4.7 per 100,000 population, the next highest developed country is Greece 1.7).
TL DR, if guns aren't the cause, and it's the people using guns, what's the real issue causing America's high murder rate?
|
On August 28 2014 17:11 crc wrote:
There's a lot of talk about how because US has many gangs, and gangs will have access to firearms regardless of gun laws, I'm genuinely curious why US has such an alarming gang problem. Other developed countries have gang problems, no doubt about it. But correct me if I'm wrong, it does seem like the gun ownership restrictions has reduced their lethality. I mean, they still do bad stuff, but the resulting fatalities aren't as high.
Are US gangs different? What do you think the US has not gotten right there? I mean, if you are saying guns aren't the problem, and the real problem is people using them, why are there more people who are trying to kill people in the US? And how should that be addressed, cos that sounds like the bigger problem if it's the root cause. I mean, there is no denying that US have higher murder rates than the rest of the developed world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, 4.7 per 100,000 population, the next highest developed country is Greece 1.7).
TL DR, if guns aren't the cause, and it's the people using guns, what's the real issue causing America's high murder rate?
Where I live (West Coast Canada), we've got a serious gang problem as well thanks to drug trade. And yes, they do have guns, and yes, there are a large number of shootings...but probably no where near the level in many densely populated US cities.
And most of those shootings are targeted drive-bys. Sometimes bystanders are caught in the crossfire, but the vast majority of gang related deaths here are rival gang members.
I couldn't begin to tell you what makes the gang issue in the US so much worse than here (if it even is, or if it's just pure hyperbole). We do have more safety nets in place for people in poverty and such, which may be a factor in people turning to crime. And, of course, we do have much stricter regulation of gun ownership, and basically none of the American gun culture.
|
On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. ![[image loading]](http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-Shot-2013-02-20-at-8.59.21-AM.png) You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link.
No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly.
To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further.
That's why you need to normalize the data first..
|
On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone.
The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side.
|
On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side.
And you are also dead lol
|
On August 28 2014 17:11 crc wrote:
TL DR, if guns aren't the cause, and it's the people using guns, what's the real issue causing America's high murder rate?
Shitty education and welfare systems leading to an underclass of angry, ignorant people stuck in a cycle of poverty. Easy access to guns is just the frosting.
|
Depends on the person do I what someone with authority to own and carry a gun yes for my own safety. Do I what someone who is on drugs or poses a threat to carry gun no. Guns in the right hands can do good and keep us safe from all the murderers,killers and violence out there which will never go away unless we have better schooling and education. In my opinion if the right people hold and carry guns I wont have a problem but if some who is going use the gun for harm,then the people of the right authority should be disarm them or stop them without causing any harm to public or anyone else.
|
On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first..
The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer.
|
On August 28 2014 17:11 crc wrote:
There's a lot of talk about how because US has many gangs, and gangs will have access to firearms regardless of gun laws, I'm genuinely curious why US has such an alarming gang problem. Other developed countries have gang problems, no doubt about it. But correct me if I'm wrong, it does seem like the gun ownership restrictions has reduced their lethality. I mean, they still do bad stuff, but the resulting fatalities aren't as high.
Are US gangs different? What do you think the US has not gotten right there? I mean, if you are saying guns aren't the problem, and the real problem is people using them, why are there more people who are trying to kill people in the US? And how should that be addressed, cos that sounds like the bigger problem if it's the root cause. I mean, there is no denying that US have higher murder rates than the rest of the developed world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate, 4.7 per 100,000 population, the next highest developed country is Greece 1.7).
TL DR, if guns aren't the cause, and it's the people using guns, what's the real issue causing America's high murder rate?
The biggest cause is of social economic nature. Poverty leads to crime basically (all kinds, except for white-collar ones  ), particularly when there's great inequality. And like Scarecrow says; Throwing in the guns makes it even more "interesting".
|
On August 28 2014 20:05 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. And you are also dead lol
Of course not, don't be preposterous. Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property.
E: posts above mine are seriously underestimating the power of selfishness.
|
On August 28 2014 20:45 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:05 Salteador Neo wrote:On August 28 2014 19:49 Incognoto wrote:On August 28 2014 15:10 IgnE wrote:
Let's follow the logic here all the way through to the end. If people are going to find ways to murder each other regardless how easy it is to get a gun, then aren't they going to find ways to intimidate, beat up, and rob people? If everyone is armed with a gun, what good does it do a person with muscular dystrophy to also be armed with a gun? Do you think you are a match for an able-bodied, walking, running person also carrying a gun? The logic here doesn't make sense. Yeah, maybe if you have a gun and 20 bikers come up on you to beat you up, you "won't be defenseless" and can wave your gun around to avert harm to everyone. Then again, if everyone has a gun, it's more likely that you get filled with shrapnel and the result is worse for everyone. The difference is that if you're law-abiding and carrying the gun and use it in self-defense, then the law / justice is on your side. And you are also dead lol Of course not, don't be preposterous. Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property. E: posts above mine are seriously underestimating the power of selfishness.
I think you missunderstood me lol. I'd be way more scared walking around with a gun than without one, even if it was legal.
I don't think any one else I know or myself have feared being beaten to death by a gang. Hell I'm not sure I've ever seen one to begin with. Why would anyone do that for no reason? If I'm being robbed I'll glady lose 50-100 bucks before risking the trouble of being on court (even for selfdefense) or being seriously injured/killed. Not even close.
|
On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer.
Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical.
|
Zurich15365 Posts
On August 28 2014 21:21 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer. Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical.
Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the number of guns per 100k is still rising, while the number of gun owning house holds is actually dropping. So, really, all those correlations with crime make even less sense.
|
On August 28 2014 20:45 Incognoto wrote:
Remember that the police is there to defend you, when needed, it's not your role to do anything about your own protection, or protection of your property.
Wait, you're saying it's not your role to protect yourself and your family from harm? That everyone across the spectrum should just call the police whenever there's a problem and hope for the best? That's definitely a modern, urban, entitled mindset - and I would say utterly naive.
Firstly, at least in the US, the police actually have no legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Are you willing to "roll the dice" with your personal safety like that? What if you live in a higher crime area, are you willing to roll those dice a couple times a year?
Secondly, where I live, average police response times hover around 15 minutes. You're saying that if a couple of armed burglars kick in my door at 3am, I'm supposed to call the police and just huddle with my family waiting for the cops to come? For fifteen minutes? And just hope for the best?
No sir. I will protect myself, my family, and my property with all means at my disposal. I have owned and trained with many different firearms dating back to my first .22 rifle as a boy scout. I can not (or will not) rely solely on possibly competent, possibly timely police action to keep my family safe. That's exactly why the law allows me to use deadly force if my own or my family's safety is in danger.
In fact, legal citizens' use of firearms to thwart crimes in progress averages 2.5 times the police use of same, with one fifth as many mistaken shootings as the police.
I realize we come from different parts of the world, but the "gun culture" many refer to in the US isn't all gangs & drug dealers. The vast majority of firearms in the US are owned legally and used responsibly. The fact that our nation was founded by an armed citizenry fighting off foreign domination probably has something to do with that mindset.
|
It wasn't foreign domination; seeing as we were part of the same nation and were the same people.
|
On August 28 2014 21:35 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 21:21 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer. Ownership is climbing way faster in 2008 onward. Also 2013 firearm homicide is at 3.6 per 100k. 80 million purchases of new firearms 2008-2013, that's astronomical. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the number of guns per 100k is still rising, while the number of gun owning house holds is actually dropping. So, really, all those correlations with crime make even less sense.
Correct on both points.
Also this is fun to look at. A few good stats like firearm homicide by race and it's all broken down into states which include percentage of homes with firearms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/gun-deaths/
p.s. blacks are 12% of our population.
|
On August 28 2014 20:24 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 18:57 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:17 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 08:13 Timmsh wrote:On August 28 2014 08:09 heliusx wrote:On August 28 2014 07:41 Timmsh wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 28 2014 07:20 heliusx wrote:How ridiculous you are. Guns in America have been climbing for a long ass time. Crime? Not so much. That's a FACT that directly disputes what you are claiming. When you're wrong you're wrong. No need to look like a fool defending the indefensible. You can't prove this by showing us this 'raw' data. You need to normalize the data for the general decrease of homicide by fire arms. All the changes and sociological reasons for people to commit such a crime and the changes in demographic and the increase of general wealth etc. etc. Gun ownership is increasing, gun violence is decreasing. Fact. Direct contradiction to the assertion of nyxisto the expert on all things America sucks. Ever heard of the statement 'Correlation doesn't mean causality'? You should read this: http://www.tylervigen.com/ Are you for real? I'm saying there is no fucking correlation. You should read your own link. No, you are saying there's no causality because you see a 'negative' correlation (or no correlation at all). After that I said there can still be causality because you need to normalize the data for a lot of factors in order to interpret this data correctly. To illustrate you what i mean, can you see that last upwards bumb in the data of homicides, in the end? That could be influenced by the increase of guns. Maybe without the increase of guns the number of homicides would decrease even further. That's why you need to normalize the data first.. The two things in the graph don't look related at all. Gun ownership steadily rises and the rate of gun related homicides first drops then climbs hard then drops hard again and then steadily climbs again. Also the scales of the right and left don't seem fair. The ownership of guns isn't climbing as fast as the graph suggests and the rate is also far closer.
Of course they don't look related. This is because the reason for homicides is not ONLY based on the amount of guns in the US. Again, you need to normalize the data first. First for socioeconomic reasons and for the general decrease of homicides each year.
After this process you can relate the data to other countries for example.
But with the raw data like this, you can't prove anything, so an increase of guns can still increase the amount of homicides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
