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.
If limitations on gun ownership do have a positive impact on violent crime rates, then it may make sense to further limit gun ownership while also identifying, and addressing, other factors.
I respectfully disagree. There is no demonstrable correlation (including all factors), even a marginal theoretical positive correlation is not proven. Further if limitations were increased pending further investigation how likely do you believe the limitations would be lifted should no correlation be identified? Your claim of hidden variables is valid mathematically, but practically it's a long stretch, certainly I'd not be slicing data cubes to determine that correlation when there are much bigger fish to find then fry.
Bear in mind that this is the same world government that during outrage placed a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" notice on a Frank Zappa instrumental album (instrumental meaning without lyrics to those musically challenged).
As the number of guns Americans have owned has increased by 50%, the rate of gun homicides has decreased by 50%, and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes has decreased by 76%.
There's NO correlation whatsoever that higher numbers of owned guns correlates to an increase in either of those crimes. In fact, the OPPOSITE correlation is true.
If limitations on gun ownership do have a positive impact on violent crime rates, then it may make sense to further limit gun ownership while also identifying, and addressing, other factors.
I respectfully disagree. There is no demonstrable correlation (including all factors), even a marginal theoretical positive correlation is not proven. Further if limitations were increased pending further investigation how likely do you believe the limitations would be lifted should no correlation be identified? Your claim of hidden variables is valid mathematically, but practically it's a long stretch, certainly I'd not be slicing data cubes to determine that correlation when there are much bigger fish to find then fry.
If, may
Quote:
Bear in mind that this is the same world government that during outrage placed a "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" notice on a Frank Zappa instrumental album (instrumental meaning without lyrics to those musically challenged).
I respectfully disagree.
Quote:
In 1990, the album DID get the sticker on it, however, it was NOT at the behest of the PMRC or any other organization. No, it was done purely on the retail side of the market, as The Meyer Music Markets (a record retail chain in the Pacific Northwest) decided on their own to put the sticker on the album.
As the number of guns Americans have owned has increased by 50%, the rate of gun homicides has decreased by 50%, and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes has decreased by 76%.
There's NO correlation whatsoever that higher numbers of owned guns correlates to an increase in either of those crimes. In fact, the OPPOSITE correlation is true.
Congratulations on stepping away from "cause" or "resulted in" We're getting somewhere.
We still can't definitely say that there's no correlation unless other factors were controlled for. Were they? We can only say that no correlation has been observed.
As the number of guns Americans have owned has increased by 50%, the rate of gun homicides has decreased by 50%, and the rate of nonfatal violent gun crimes has decreased by 76%.
There's NO correlation whatsoever that higher numbers of owned guns correlates to an increase in either of those crimes. In fact, the OPPOSITE correlation is true.
Well he's got a point. It's possible what he's stating is true, but it's a stretch given the 50% of known legal guns in circulation, and up to a 75% reduction in violent crime and homicide (if I remembered the figures correctly). However while it is possible there would need to be other factors of such enormity that their effect dwarfs the comparison you've given and are currently unknown. That's a big old pill to swallow, sure mathematically he's correct, but practically is an entirely different matter.
The previous Federal AW ban was left to expire because there was no evidence it did anything to prevent crime related to firearms.
And it was an extremely poorly written law by someone who knew nothing about guns. It banned guns on looks and not function. (not that any law should have been written)
I used to be quite angry about gun deaths and the never ending massacre of children , elderly, worshipers and groups from just about every walk of life.
No more.
It is simply a function of our Society. We love guns, and we are not upset when a few dozen of our citizens are killed during ignorant gun violence. We get all flustered for a day or two, and that's it.
You just have to deal with it. Accept it. We love our guns way more than we love our people. We all know that with so many assault weapons in the hands of our citizens that many people are going to die during violent assaults, but we don't care. We don't pass legislation halting the massacres. We don't shut down the manufacturers, nor the shops and shows which sell the hardware. Instead, we love having guns, and accept the collateral damage they inflict.
Shrugging your shoulders is a much calmer way to look at it than trying to stop the violence. Accept it. The decision has been made. We love it. We are happy with it. We accept that death is a part of it. Sorry for the parents of the children. They did not survive. Guns did. All is good.
Congratulations on stepping away from "cause" or "resulted in" We're getting somewhere.
We still can't definitely say that there's no correlation unless other factors were controlled for. Were they? We can only say that no correlation has been observed.
There has been NO increase in the gun homicide rate nor the nonfatal gun crime rate during the time that Americans increased gun ownership by 50%. I fact, it's quite the opposite.
So, WHY are some demanding gun control/bans when there's NO evidence whatsoever that gun ownership rate is related to gun crime rates?
Why not arbitrarily insist on reducing the rate of cell phone ownership, instead?
<>So, WHY are some demanding gun control/bans when there's no evidence whatsoever that gun ownership is related to gun crimes?
<>
Because if it happens to happen to you it is 100% and they would like to prevent that.
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.
We're getting somewhere.
