Gun Statistics

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: halik
Correlation != causation

End of thread.

And CDC stands for Centers for Disease Control. Why are they even publishing this? Or researching it?

Someone here posted a good link to an article that rebuts the CDC research. I will have to look it up, it wasn't too long ago in one of our many gun related arguments.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: babylon5
Every nation has its own methods of population reduction, whether the citizens want it or not. Africa/India got diseases, Middle East got wars, and we got gun violence.

Every nation? Then what do we have in New Zealand?

Strict immigration laws? From what I understand, it's almost impossible for a foreigner to become a citizen of New Zealand.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
- A study sponsored by the Center for Disease Control compared gun owners and non owners of the same gender, race, age, and neighborhood. Those who kept a gun in the home (often for protection) were 2.7 times as likely to be murdered-nearly always by a family member or a close member acquaintance (Kellerman, 1993, 1997).

- Another study found that the risk of suicide in homes with guns was 5 times as high as in homes without them (Tuabes, 1992).

- Compared with others of the same gender, age, and race, people with guns at home were 41 percent as likely to be homicide victims and 3.4 times as likely to die of suicide (Wiebe, 2003).

Countries that ban handguns have lower murder rates. Compared with the United States, Britain has one-fourth as many people and one-sixteenth as many murders. The United States has 10,000 handgun homicides a year; Australia has about a dozen, Britain two dozen, and Canada 100. When Washington, D.C., adopted a law restricting handgun possession, the numbers of gun-related murders and suicides each abruptly dropped about 25 percent. No changes occurred in other methods of murder and suicide, nor did adjacent areas outside the reach of this law experience any other such declines (Loftin & others, 1991).

According to Milgram's obedience studies, remoteness from the victim facilitates cruelty. A Knife can kill someone, but a knife attack requires a great deal more personal contact than pulling a trigger from a distance.

............................................................

I am a strong supporter of the constitution, which of course includes supporting the 2nd amendment. The more I research the effect that guns have on our society, the more I'm starting to see this amendment as old and outdated. Back when our constitution was drafted, those people weren't exposed to all the violence we receive on a daily basis from the media today. People back then were generally more mature and respected their firearms. They also didn't have access to weapons that could mow down 40 people in one clip. The fact that a gangster who flunked out of high school can just as easily acquire a weapon from Walmart as I can because of the 2nd amendment is just scary. As shown in the statistics above, I really don't think most of our violence hungry society holds the maturity/responsibility needed to own a firearm anymore.

Such an interesting qoute in your signature considering your use of the statistics your provide. Just for reference, murders in DC before the handgun ban in 1975, prohibited handguns registered before 1977. Murders per year 1975 235, 1976 188, 1977 192, 1978 189, 1979 180. The large drop in murders did occur after the law passed, but before it went in to affect. If you wish to credit that law with the drop in the murder rate can you please explain to us, how the law caused the murder rate to decline even though the law was not yet in effect? Source

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
That's nice.

* New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
* In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures, and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977.
* In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

Game. Set. Match.

Originally posted by: halik
Correlation != causation

 

[IceBergSLiM]

whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: halik
Correlation != causation

End of thread.

Everytime we talk about this, but it's usually used by people who refuse to believe the data. Take stats with a grain of salt at times, but realize that it does point out some interesting trends. Research those trends and use some knowledge of your own to make sense of it. If you completely disagree, then you better have some good evidence because usually well run experiments have some validity to them.

Now, on this quoted point, correlation may not equate to causation, but sometimes the two overlap. Even if they don't strong correlation relates to strong predictability. So if ice cream sales has a strong correlation with murder rates, there might not be causation, but the strong correlation implies predictability. Thus if you ban ice cream, you can be sure to lower murder rates substantially. People tend to overuse the correlation != causation so it's useless data. No it's not USELESS. You may not have found the true factor in murders and violent crimes involving guns but you found some factor that you can control that WILL affect murder rates with significant statistical evidence. So the question is do you act on this knowing that it's not a true cause but has reliable predictability?

The pro gun people always argue "let's go after the source of our problems," but are can never pinpoint a true factor or a sensible solution. So thus the status quo continues. The anti-gun people propose radical things such as banning all weapons, but this just outrages others because it clearly kills the 2nd amendment. It's a never ending argument.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: halik
Correlation != causation

End of thread.

Everytime we talk about this, but it's usually used by people who refuse to believe the data. Take stats with a grain of salt at times, but realize that it does point out some interesting trends. Research those trends and use some knowledge of your own to make sense of it. If you completely disagree, then you better have some good evidence because usually well run experiments have some validity to them.

Now, on this quoted point, correlation may not equate to causation, but sometimes the two overlap. Even if they don't strong correlation relates to strong predictability. So if ice cream sales has a strong correlation with murder rates, there might not be causation, but the strong correlation implies predictability. Thus if you ban ice cream, you can be sure to lower murder rates substantially. People tend to overuse the correlation != causation so it's useless data. No it's not USELESS. You may not have found the true factor in murders and violent crimes involving guns but you found some factor that you can control that WILL affect murder rates with significant statistical evidence. So the question is do you act on this knowing that it's not a true cause but has reliable predictability?

The pro gun people always argue "let's go after the source of our problems," but are can never pinpoint a true factor or a sensible solution. So thus the status quo continues. The anti-gun people propose radical things such as banning all weapons, but this just outrages others because it clearly kills the 2nd amendment. It's a never ending argument.

Yikes, I don't know where to begin with this.

then you better have some good evidence because usually well run experiments have some validity to them.

See my statement above. Just from the OPs description of this experiment it is not well run. Someone that looks at the same race, gender, and neighborhood is limiting the results to being applicable only to that gender, race, and neighborhood. You can't generalize the entire population with such narrow sampling criteria.

For you second paragraph, Even if there is a strong correlation between ice cream and murder, banning Ice cream will have no effect on murder rates. Rather, Ice Cream and murder ratios could both be strongly correlated to some common factor (The weather perhaps). That's the primary reason why the first thing they teach you in statistics is that correlation is not causation.

You may not have found the true factor in murders and violent crimes involving guns but you found some factor that you can control that WILL affect murder rates

You have NOT found something that will affect murder rates. You have found something that will PREDICT murder rates. There is a HUGE difference. Eliminating a predictor does nothing other then to eliminate something that could be used in prediction.

If you think that some strong correlation is part of the cause, then you had better be the one doing the proofs, not vica-versa. If you make the claim that banning Ice cream will lower murder you better have some tests cases (say towns that have banned Ice cream vs towns that haven't) before you try and tell everyone that what you are saying is true.

 

[JTsyo]

Anyone run across any sites that show deaths by state per year back to the 70s or so?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
The second amendment was intended by the founders primarily to be used as a last resort against an oppressive government. The ability to defend oneself was really a secondary purpose for the amendment.

Also, If we ban / heavily restrict the sale of guns, it won't change criminals' desires to commit crimes. They will instead acquire them on the black market at an above normal price which transfers money into the hands of lawbreakers.

i've always been torn as between i guaranteeing the right of the states to maintain a militia and allowing the citizens to own guns, ts really poorly written.

Much like every one of your posts.

mylp

Ah, another shining example of theidiot's posts.

English, muthafucka! Do you speak it?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
The second amendment was intended by the founders primarily to be used as a last resort against an oppressive government. The ability to defend oneself was really a secondary purpose for the amendment.

Also, If we ban / heavily restrict the sale of guns, it won't change criminals' desires to commit crimes. They will instead acquire them on the black market at an above normal price which transfers money into the hands of lawbreakers.

i've always been torn as between i guaranteeing the right of the states to maintain a militia and allowing the citizens to own guns, ts really poorly written.

Much like every one of your posts.

mylp

Ah, another shining example of theidiot's posts.

English, muthafucka! Do you speak it?

i don't think you're in any position to comment on anyone elses posting contributions around here. You're a joke.

Much Like Your Posting

edit: upon forther inspection, i spelled mlyp wrong

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: masteryoda34
The second amendment was intended by the founders primarily to be used as a last resort against an oppressive government. The ability to defend oneself was really a secondary purpose for the amendment.

Also, If we ban / heavily restrict the sale of guns, it won't change criminals' desires to commit crimes. They will instead acquire them on the black market at an above normal price which transfers money into the hands of lawbreakers.

i've always been torn as between i guaranteeing the right of the states to maintain a militia and allowing the citizens to own guns, ts really poorly written.

Much like every one of your posts.

mylp

Ah, another shining example of theidiot's posts.

English, muthafucka! Do you speak it?

i don't think you're in any position to comment on anyone elses posting contributions around here. I'm still not sure if you've ever posted anything that wasn't an ad hominem. You're a joke.

Much Like Your Posting

edit: upon further inspection, i spelled mlyp wrong

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Much like every one of your posts.

mylp

Ah, another shining example of theidiot's posts.

English, muthafucka! Do you speak it?

i don't think you're in any position to comment on anyone elses posting contributions around here. You're a joke.

Much Like Your Posting

edit: upon forther inspection, i spelled mlyp wrong

HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Much like every one of your posts.

mylp

Ah, another shining example of theidiot's posts.

English, muthafucka! Do you speak it?

i don't think you're in any position to comment on anyone elses posting contributions around here. You're a joke.

Much Like Your Posting

edit: upon forther inspection, i spelled mlyp wrong

HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

shit i can't type or do anything right format wise today.

 

[BoberFett]

Right. Today. Today is the rule, not the exception.

Sadly, the content of your posts is more lacking than the formatting.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Wow...I was wrong. He went even further to the right to "prove" his point.

http://www.ncpa.org/

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/in...hp?Article_Category=14

Yaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy attack the source instead of the argument. Oldest fallacy in the book. Please disprove data from the FBI. I think I'll believe their statistics over some script kiddies' blogging any day. Goes to you too Zepp.

:roll:

 

[Stunt]

The sale of guns is not what motivates people to kill other people.
As mentioned above, Canada has tons of guns and much less murder.

I believe it's more an issue of socio-economics.
The US has a more urban population and higher cost of living because of this. Also there seems to be a heavier usage of hard drugs.
If people are addicted to expensive drugs and cannot afford to live, you are going to have more crime and psychological stress.

The other nations stated tend to have a lower cost of living and a better social safety net than the US.
I think this is the key to reducing crime rather than implementing gun legislation but then I guess you have to ask yourself if it's worth the added cost of the social safety net, how much crime are you willing to accept, are you willing to pay for room and board for criminals, do you want to pay for more police as protection?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

Forget cars, how about alcohol? Alcohol is directly and or indirectly responsible for how many thousands of deaths per year? Better yet, while a gun doesn't make anyone do anything, being under the affects of alcohol seriously degrades a person's ability to make decisions and act responsibly.

Nobody needs alcohol, and look at all of the pain that it causes people every year. Ban alcohol.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
yaaa, lets ban guns... the only fucking thing i would never ever ever ever ever ever ever support...

I'm not saying that we should ever ban them. I would highly support a more rigorous screening process though. It is currently way to easy for idiots to buy guns.

Its ignorant to think that most criminals buy them the legit way. Stronger laws wont matter to them, and wont make crime go down.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

Forget cars, how about alcohol? Alcohol is directly and or indirectly responsible for how many thousands of deaths per year? Better yet, while a gun doesn't make anyone do anything, being under the affects of alcohol seriously degrades a person's ability to make decisions and act responsibly.

Nobody needs alcohol, and look at all of the pain that it causes people every year. Ban alcohol.

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

 

[Bulk Beef]

OP should do his own research instead of copying shit out of his social psych textbook.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

Forget cars, how about alcohol? Alcohol is directly and or indirectly responsible for how many thousands of deaths per year? Better yet, while a gun doesn't make anyone do anything, being under the affects of alcohol seriously degrades a person's ability to make decisions and act responsibly.

Nobody needs alcohol, and look at all of the pain that it causes people every year. Ban alcohol.

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

So we should restrict something not because of the harmful affects it has but because of its purpose? In other words, we are not banning guns because of the harm that they actually cause, nor to reduce that harm, but only because we don't like what they are intended for?

You need to maintain a consistent argument, first you state you are trying to find the cause of all those murders. But, when someone points out that there are other things we can ban that you like, all of the sudden we switch to intent. What do you want to achieve, do you not like guns because their primary purpose or because of the number of people killed? If it is because of the number of people killed, why are you so resistant to other suggestions that could reduce an even greater number of deaths?

 

[theflyingpig]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok. What's the PRIMARY purpose of a gun? What's the PRIMARY purpose of a car? What's the PRIMARY purpose of alcohol? There are 10,000 other things a car can do other than run over a person that we use it for because those 10,000 things are what we actually use the car for (i.e. simplifying life, transportation, errands, etc).

We talk about things that are deadlier but this makes no logical sense. It's like saying that we need to reduce spending on the war on Iraq because its too costly and bringing us too little. Rather than to address whether its necessary to spend more or less, you attack spending on social security. Great. Spending yes, just like guns and cars kill, but we're talking about guns here.

The primary purpose of most guns is to kill. The primary purpose of a car is to move people/goods from one location to another. Guns are designed to kill and cars are not, yet there are more traffic fatalities than gun deaths. Everyone knows this.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Right. Today. Today is the rule, not the exception.

Sadly, the content of your posts is more lacking than the formatting.

pretty rich coming from you

when was the last time you contributed anything to a thread? 2005?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats your point ?

30k gun related deaths per year. Over half are suicide.

Figure 15,000 others are homicides or accidents

15,000/250,000,000 (current estimate of privately owned guns in U.S) =
.006%

I can live with 6 one thousandths of a percent.

EDIT:

more people die from flue each year @ 20,000 people

41,611 car related fatalities per year

around 250,000,000 registered cars in the US

41,611 / 250,000,000 = .016%

Cars are deadlier than guns in America

Forget cars, how about alcohol? Alcohol is directly and or indirectly responsible for how many thousands of deaths per year? Better yet, while a gun doesn't make anyone do anything, being under the affects of alcohol seriously degrades a person's ability to make decisions and act responsibly.

Nobody needs alcohol, and look at all of the pain that it causes people every year. Ban alcohol.

alcohol wasn't invent to kill people

guns were invited to kill people

proper usage of alcohol leads to people getting drunk/buzzed

proper usage of a gun leads to things being dead.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
yaaa, lets ban guns... the only fucking thing i would never ever ever ever ever ever ever support...

I'm not saying that we should ever ban them. I would highly support a more rigorous screening process though. It is currently way to easy for idiots to buy guns.

Its ignorant to think that most criminals buy them the legit way. Stronger laws wont matter to them, and wont make crime go down.

guns don't appear on the black market out of a void.