Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The graph you linked to shows that the non-fatal firearm-related violent crime rate has decreased from 1993 to 2009---that's a good thing, right? I don't know -- has gun ownership steadily increased over that time? Maybe it decreased.
The findings I linked to stated that more guns = more homicides. So the more guns are present in a state, or a country, the higher the number of homicides.
So you are intentionally avoiding an in-depth analysis of homicide statistics in favor of a strict "correlation equals causation" argument? Then you have no expectation to be taken seriously because you are deliberately looking for justify existing beliefs rather than engage in an honest discussion.
I believe there is such a thing an honest debate on gun control. We can discuss the amount of homicides committed with "assault weapons" versus hand guns versus standard long guns. We can debate the merits of background checks and whether or not they are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk individuals like the mentally ill and violent criminals. We can discuss whether being armed (or the possibility of being armed) is any deterrent to criminals or potential mass shooters and if some crimes are prevented by guns whether it is enough to justify the crimes that are committed by guns. We can compare murder rates (as opposed to the misleading "gun deaths" which includes suicides and accidents plus completely ignores other methods of murder) in various countries, states, and cities in relation to gun ownership and gun restrictions and attempt to see if any correlations are the result of those factors or merely coincidence.
But you are not interested in a meaningful debate. You linked a page that cited a few studies (and I am sure none of those studies had any bias whatsoever) that didn't go too far in depth into the methodology of the studies and want us to argue with that instead of making your own arguments.
I certainly hope you weren't on the debate team at school...
So you are intentionally avoiding an in-depth analysis of homicide statistics in favor of a strict "correlation equals causation" argument? Then you have no expectation to be taken seriously because you are deliberately looking for justify existing beliefs rather than engage in an honest discussion.
I believe there is such a thing an honest debate on gun control. We can discuss the amount of homicides committed with "assault weapons" versus hand guns versus standard long guns. We can debate the merits of background checks and whether or not they are effective in keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk individuals like the mentally ill and violent criminals. We can discuss whether being armed (or the possibility of being armed) is any deterrent to criminals or potential mass shooters and if some crimes are prevented by guns whether it is enough to justify the crimes that are committed by guns. We can compare murder rates (as opposed to the misleading "gun deaths" which includes suicides and accidents plus completely ignores other methods of murder) in various countries, states, and cities in relation to gun ownership and gun restrictions and attempt to see if any correlations are the result of those factors or merely coincidence.
But you are not interested in a meaningful debate. You linked a page that cited a few studies (and I am sure none of those studies had any bias whatsoever) that didn't go too far in depth into the methodology of the studies and want us to argue with that instead of making your own arguments.
I certainly hope you weren't on the debate team at school...
At this exact second I wouldn't be equipped to argue all of that because it would take time to research. That's why I'm relying on the expert researchers conclusions---they've done the literature review for us.
I'm not going to read the original articles (at least nor at this moment Let me quote from the experts:
"Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
"we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
"Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide."
Then I have no interest in discussion with you. If you can't be bothered to read the sources and only wish to argue the summaries of others, then you are telling me that you don't want to know the facts, you simply want your position to win the day. I have no interest in arguing such foolishness.
270,000,000 guns in the United States...269,999,998 were not used in a school shooting yesterday.
But throughout today several of those firearms will be used to kill, either suicide or homicide:
"The nation averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control."
But throughout today several of those firearms will be used to kill, either suicide or homicide:
"The nation averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control."
And compared to the number of people in the country, that number is insignificant. I already showed you the math of this earlier in the thread. If you are going to get upset about this number and disregard everything else out there that is significantly higher, well... it is hypocritical and shows attention to a given bias to fulfill an agenda.
33,000+ people a year dying of illegal drug overdoses. And same people who want gun control want to legalize drugs.
15,000+ people a year dying of PRESCRIPTION DRUG overdoses. Let's get rid of all those. You can just bite a stick when you have pain.
5000+ people a year dying of methadone overdoses (them folks who can't cold turkey it off of narcs, so we baby them down with methadone).
440,000+ people a year dying from cigarettes...keep puffin', people.
80,000+ people a year dying from alcohol...fantastic. Bottom's up!
30,000 people a year die a gun-related death. Most of them are suicides, the majority of the remainder are criminals.
Who wasn't sickened by what happened to those kids? Or the people in the theater? Or at the temple? But you keep using outliers as examples when there are WAY WORSE killers out there in society that no one is particularly thrilled to address.
Last night a drunk guy couldn't get his 3 month old baby to stop crying, so he threw him against the couch 15 times...this kid wound up in our ED. THIS is what we see every day. Lives ruined and wasted because of drugs and alcohol. Gunshot deaths? Not daily, not even a monthly basis. And most of them have been self inflicted (dropped the gun, cleaning gun while loaded, or trying to kill themselves). The majority of others is what the police refer to as 'service killings.' As in a service to society.
I get it. People are scared and they don't know how to address the real problem. Society and how screwed up it's become. So they go after the only thing..."Well, this was perpetrated by a gun, so we should get rid of guns." Seriously? Some guy in China slashed up 22 grade school kids...we getting rid of knives, too?
That however does not establish anything conclusive. It is an assumption of relation on their part, not an identification of relation that properly concludes to a given result. That is, their mention is anecdotal in nature, it is not validated.
To quote an old NASA saying "In God we trust, all others bring data". I do not trust anyone to their word, especially as it concerns statistical analysis. You may be willing to accept ones word at face value, but it is by no means a support for an argument. I have read far too many research papers which were summarized to suggest a conclusion that was not present or properly supported in the original research. Such misleading summary is far too common these days, even in sources to which you may believe are trusted authorities.
I would suggest that you actually read the research as you might just be surprised at how much liberty they take in interpreting the results.
No point in trying to argue with it. Ellemint is a sockpuppet who is arguing purely to convince himself.
I have no problem with linking studies, but studies vary in their reliability and honesty. I do know some of the organizations that conducted the research do have an anti-gun bias. Does that mean that the research itself is bad? Not necessarily. You can be biased and still carry out quality research. It does mean that if the results are inconclusive (as most studies usually are) that the author might just as well assume that it probably leans a bit in his point of view anyways or if a study comes up with the opposite conclusion "Well, the study is wrong" and it goes down the memory hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
At this exact second I wouldn't be equipped to argue all of that because it would take time to research. That's why I'm relying on the expert researchers conclusions---they've done the literature review for us.
Heh. This is actually better than any satire than I could come up with.
You freely admit that you haven't looked into the issue and use an appeal to authority as well.
Bravo. This is the first time I have ever seen someone clearly lose a thread.
But throughout today several of those firearms will be used to kill, either suicide or homicide:
"The nation averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control."
And cars will kill 100 and injure over 6,000 every day. 2.2 million people are injured every year by vehicles - stop the carnage, ban cars! http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf
How many of those cars will be used to stop a crime or killing? Virtually none, even the police rarely directly stop a crime. Guns on the other hand are used to stop crimes over 1,000 times a day in the US.
So which is it, do you want to save lives, or do you really just want to ban guns because you're afraid of them?
But throughout today several of those firearms will be used to kill, either suicide or homicide:
"The nation averages 87 gun deaths each day as a function of gun violence, with an average of 183 injured, according to the University of Chicago Crime Lab and the Centers for Disease Control."
And there are between 1 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses in this country every year. So every day they are used for defensive purposes a minimum of 2,739 times. How many murders, rapes and violent assaults are prevented with that tool?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me quote from the experts:
