Quote:
Originally Posted by fairlaker
If I weren't, I would not so easily have spotted your having stumbled over the matter.
|
No, it just means you are desperately holding on to the idea that suicides need to be considered in a thread about self defense.
Quote:
Misleading to the desperate. Those living in a home with a gun are four times more likley to die from a gunshot wound than those who do not. This point was first raised in Post-26 and its implications have been as much a part of the thread since as any others. Proximity to a gun makes one less safe rather than more safe. You want to exclude all gunshot deaths other than criminal homicides only in an attempt to save face and dilute the actual point. It's not working.
|
No, it just means you are desperately holding on to the idea that suicides and other non-homicide gunshot deaths need to be considered in a thread about self defense.
Quote:
Your plan for keeping guns away from "suicidal people" while keeping them handy enough for everyone else to use in warding off personal attacks would be what again?
|
That is the crux of the matter, is it not? How do we keep guns away from people who would do harm to themselves or others without infringing on the right of everyone else to have them for defense - or as a hobby for hunting or target shooting?
Quote:
That would be the definition of a trend. You and data don't seem to mix all that well.
|
What I see is a projection of a trend with
no data to show how it was calculated. if you have the data, I would be happy to read it.
Quote:
There are. You simply aren't aware of them.
|
Then what are they? Show me.
Quote:
The "information" is contained in the data, which in this case came from CDC. And what you have found of course is a published report that agrees with me. You had earlier posted a source stating that "Highway deaths have been declining significantly in recent years." Now see if you can find some source somewhere that disagrees with me.
|
No, you show me the data used to create the projection. Your statement, you get to support it.
Quote:
Oh dear. Single new observations do not "blow" anyone's projections, and the source you chose plainly states that it projected from 2010 at ten-year average rates of change. How did you manage to miss that? This is actually not so bad for media-types, but both 2011 and 2012 would need to be added if their methodology were to be replicated. 2011 of course was the lowest year in many years, and once again, you have wandered in well over your head.
|
It appears the chart was compiled by someone at Bloomberg:
Report: Gun Deaths Will Exceed Traffic Deaths By 2015 - Business Insider
I read other articles about the chart. None credits the CDC with the chart or the projection. One commentator did note that even if the convergence is true, it would be because traffic deaths are going
down, not because gun deaths were going
up. If you have the CDC report that actually makes such a projection, I would like a link, please. The "projection" was made without two years of data. The logical thing would be to revise the "projection" using the missing data. Do you have such a revision?