Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[XponentialChaos]

That's fine. You can question the relevance all you want, and I've said this a few times because I get that you don't agree with the measurement I'm using. All I'm saying is that the math, for that variable you don't want to use, is fine.

The numbers aren't "way off". You just disagree with the measurement.

This wasn't supposed to be this big of a big deal, lol. Let's just call it what it is.

Yes.....change a measurement by a 1/4 inch and the math still works, but the building collapses...the math was right, the numbers were just the wrong numbers that were needed for the end result...

There we go. Now we're on the same page again.

And here is an example...

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.

However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.

And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....

You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....

Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.

I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.

States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.

I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....change a measurement by a 1/4 inch and the math still works, but the building collapses...the math was right, the numbers were just the wrong numbers that were needed for the end result...

There we go. Now we're on the same page again.

And here is an example...

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.

However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.

And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....

You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....

Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.

I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.

States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.

I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.

No, it's not. As my links show.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.....change a measurement by a 1/4 inch and the math still works, but the building collapses...the math was right, the numbers were just the wrong numbers that were needed for the end result...

There we go. Now we're on the same page again.

And here is an example...

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.

However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.

And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....

You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....

Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.

I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.

States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.

I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.

Things you are not taking into account......

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

• The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
• -------

6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.

• The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun-control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
• The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
• Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain spiked in the years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, despite the fact that most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
• Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972 gun confiscation legislation.
• Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
• According to research compiled by John Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
• Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
• It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has excluded from its homicide counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All of these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

 

[XponentialChaos]

There we go. Now we're on the same page again.

And here is an example...

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.

However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.

And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....

You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....

Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.

I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.

States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.

I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.

No, it's not. As my links show.

Show me.

 

[XponentialChaos]

There we go. Now we're on the same page again.

And here is an example...

More Minnesotans Own Guns, Violent Crime Remains Low | Ryan McMaken

Like numerous northern states with fairly high rates of gun ownership, Minnesota also enjoys very low homicide rates.

First of all, as noted here at mises.org, homicide rates in the United States vary considerably by state and region. Claims about homicide and violence "in the United States" are usually meaningless because of the large variations from place to place in the United States.

In Minnesota, the homicide rate in 2016 was 1.8 per 100,000. That's about equal to the homicide rate in British Columbia, Canada.
------

Secondly, it is also true nationwide that homicide rates do not increase with increasing gun ownership. In fact, as we've shown here at mises.org, from 1994 to 2013, gun ownership increased substantially, while homicide rates fell. Moreover, homocide rates are now near 50-year lows, and have falled considerably from the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the same argument all over again. We already agreed that a reason for the declining crime rates and homicide rates is the police, among other reasons.

However, when we remove the time period and just compare gun ownership rates to violent crime rates, there's a slightly positive correlation. This number negates the effects of police efforts over time and just looks at gun ownership vs violent crime rates.

And now....to throw in Concealed carry laws and gun ownership.....they do, in fact, help to decrease gun crime.....

You can't take away the fact that more guns did not lead to more gun crime......you want to, but you can't. You aren't factoring everything you need to make that conclusion.....

Normal people who own guns are not using those guns for crime...that is a fact.....so the mere existence of guns does not equal higher gun crime rates......... Lax policies toward criminals are not in your equation.... the effect of single parent homes and violence is not in your equation.....there are so many variables you can't account for, that your number fails to be even remotely accurate.

I haven't said anything about concealed carry laws. I'm not sure this applies to what I've said.

States with more gun owners have a positive correlation with violent crime. That's a fact. I'm not implying anything other than what I said in that sentence. That sentence is a fact.

I didn't say "gun crime". I said "violent crime". I haven't run the numbers with gun crime.

Things you are not taking into account......

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

• The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than it is among African-Americans, but the murder rate among African-Americans is significantly higher than the rate among whites.
• -------

6. There is no clear relationship between strict gun control legislation and homicide or violent crime rates.

• The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence ironically makes this clear with its ratings for states based on gun laws. “Gun freedom” states that score poorly, like New Hampshire, Vermont, Idaho, and Oregon, have some of the lowest homicide rates. Conversely, “gun-control-loving” states that received high scores, like Maryland and Illinois, experience some of the nation’s highest homicide rates.
• The Crime Prevention Research Center notes that, if anything, the data indicate that countries with high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower homicide rates—but this is only a correlation, and many factors do not necessarily support a conclusion that high rates of gun ownership cause the low rates of homicide.
• Homicide and firearm homicide rates in Great Britain spiked in the years immediately following the imposition of severe gun control measures, despite the fact that most developed countries continued to experience a downward trend in these rates. This is also pointed out by noted criminologist John Lott in his book “The War on Guns.”
• Similarly, Ireland’s homicide rates spiked in the years immediately following the country’s 1972 gun confiscation legislation.
• Australia’s National Firearms Act appears to have had little effect on suicide and homicide rates, which were falling before the law was enacted and continued to decline at a statistically unremarkable rate compared to worldwide trends.
• According to research compiled by John Lott and highlighted in his book “The War on Guns,” Australia’s armed and unarmed robbery rates both increased markedly in the five years immediately following the National Firearms Act, despite the general downward trend experienced by other developed countries.
• Great Britain has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world, but the violent crime rate for homicide, rape, burglary, and aggravated assault is much higher than that in the U.S. Further, approximately 60 percent of burglaries in Great Britain occur while residents are home, compared to just 13 percent in the U.S., and British burglars admit to targeting occupied residences because they are more likely to find wallets and purses.
• It is difficult to compare homicide and firearm-related murder rates across international borders because countries use different methods to determine which deaths “count” for purposes of violent crime. For example, since 1967, Great Britain has excluded from its homicide counts any case that does not result in a conviction, that was the result of dangerous driving, or in which the person was determined to have acted in self-defense. All of these factors are counted as “homicides” in the United States.

They're comparing violent crime in different countries. I already addressed this with you in post #1518.

I can repeat myself though if you like.

 

[Leo123]

2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

What are you doing? Dividing Gun Death Rate by number of guns? How do you determine "Gun Ownership Rate?" What is your population of data? It's hard to understand the results without explaining your data collection and statistical calculations.

Sorry, I was talking to him and I had already shown him the links I was using.

Here's where the gun ownership rate is coming from: Gun ownership by state
Gun death rate is just the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Here is the firearm death rate: Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

I'm simply calculating the Pearson's correlation coefficient by state, comparing a few different measures to see how closely correlated they are.

Let me know if you need any other links so you can follow along.

OK thanks but those links prove nothing because all data is impossible to collect and it is impossible to know just how many guns there are. There is over 393,000,000 known guns in the U.S. but those are the only the ones that are known and can be quantified. The number of guns leaving circulation, illegal, etc. is unknown so, even trying to count the number of guns in the U.S. is nothing more than an academic exercise. Taking such sketchy data and trying to apply a statistical model to prove some kind of point is pretty futile. Like they used to say in the early days of computing ..... "garbage in - garbage out."

 

[XponentialChaos]

OK thanks but those links prove nothing because all data is impossible to collect and it is impossible to know just how many guns there are. There is over 393,000,000 known guns in the U.S. but those are the only the ones that are known and can be quantified. The number of guns leaving circulation, illegal, etc. is unknown so, even trying to count the number of guns in the U.S. is nothing more than an academic exercise. Taking such sketchy data and trying to apply a statistical model to prove some kind of point is pretty futile. Like they used to say in the early days of computing ..... "garbage in - garbage out."

The same can be said of just about any data.

Both sides are looking at the same data. Both sides are using that data to make arguments for or against gun legislation. Yet somehow the quality of the data only becomes a concern when the opposition uses it.

 

[Leo123]

[QUTE="Leo123, post: 22833613, member: 65921"]

OK thanks but those links prove nothing because all data is impossible to collect and it is impossible to know just how many guns there are. There is over 393,000,000 known guns in the U.S. but those are the only the ones that are known and can be quantified. The number of guns leaving circulation, illegal, etc. is unknown so, even trying to count the number of guns in the U.S. is nothing more than an academic exercise. Taking such sketchy data and trying to apply a statistical model to prove some kind of point is pretty futile. Like they used to say in the early days of computing ..... "garbage in - garbage out."

The same can be said of just about any data.

Both sides are looking at the same data. Both sides are using that data to make arguments for or against gun legislation. Yet somehow the quality of the data only becomes a concern when the opposition uses it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, because the quality of the data is IMPORTANT!!!! Especially when you are advocating weakening the 2nd amendment!!! The 'gun grabbers' have the burden of PROVING the 2nd amendment is not applicable to "We the People"....So far all they have is sycophant MSM and fake 'studies' which is the WEAKEST argument against gun ownership by We The People.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes, because the quality of the data is IMPORTANT!!!! Especially when you are advocating weakening the 2nd amendment!!! The 'gun grabbers' have the burden of PROVING the 2nd amendment is not applicable to "We the People"....So far all they have is sycophant MSM and fake 'studies' which is the WEAKEST argument against gun ownership by We The People.

It sure is convenient that the inevitable burden of imperfect data is only of consequence to the opposition, because you say so.

 

[OldLady]

You are oversimplifying and you know it. If the Second Amendment is going to be used as a roadblock toward effective regulation of guns in this country, then it needs to go.

Stop whining on USMB, get off your rump, and amend the Constitution.

If people were willing to accept restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition they could own...

Why on God's green earth would we let anti-gun loons define how we're "allowed" to exercise our rights?

You will lose, eventually. How much you lose is going to be dependent on the choices you make. I might not be around to see it, but it is inevitable that the mass gun slaughter in this country will stop.

There is not mass gun slaughter no matter what you say.....

Gun murder is down 49%...... gun accidents down too....nothing you believe about guns is true....

More Americans own guns, more people carry guns......less gun murder not more......

You have nothing but emotion...

600 million guns, 17.25 million carrying guns...

12 mass public shootings in 2018,

93 people killed.

How is that mass slaughter?

Cars killed 38,000

Can you tell which number is bigger?

I have an article based on recent, reliable polls, not emotion.
According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). The GSS pegs it even lower -- only 21% of Americans said they personally own guns (11 points lower than the 32% who live in households with guns).

There's a gun for every American. Less than 1/3 own guns. - CNNPolitics

This isn't true....actual gun owners no longer admit to ownership to anonymous strangers over the phone...especially after Sandy Hook when local papers decided to publish the names of gun owners in their papers......letting criminals know where guns were located...

Notice...this is NBC...not "NRA"

NBC Poll: Does Gun Ownership Increase Or Decrease Safety? Anti-Gun Activists Won't Like The Results.

nearly 6 in 10 Americans believe that getting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens increases safety.

"In the poll, 58 percent agree with the statement that gun ownership does more to increase safety by allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves," NBC News reports. "By contrast, 38 percent say that gun ownership reduces safety by giving too many people access to firearms, increasing the chances for accidental misuse."

------

NBC notes that the overall result is a "reversal" of the findings of a 1999 survey that found that 52 percent of respondents believed gun ownership reduced safety. The more positive perspective on gun ownership is partly reflected in gun ownership trends: "47 percent of American adults say they have a firearm in the household, which is up from 44 percent in 1999."


Why Women Are Buying More Guns

More than a third of the women who participated in the National Sports Shooting Foundation’s most recent survey identified as new gun owners. This data are consistent with those of other organizations, including the National Sporting Goods Association. According to the NSGA’s Annual Sports Participation Report, the number of women who practice target shooting increased nearly 36 percent (from 4.31 million to 5.86 million) between 2004 and 2014, while the number of women participating in hunting increased 23 percent (from 2.68 million to 3.3 million). In response to a request for comment, an NRA spokesman reported tracking a 77 percent increase between 2004 and 2011 in the number of women who own firearms.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013


Based on data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report(and additional data from another Wonkblog article “There are now more guns than people in the United States”), the number of privately owned firearms in U.S. increased from about 185 million in 1993 to 357 million in 2013.

-------------------------------
Is gun ownership really down in America? | Fox News

Surely, gun control advocates such as GSS director Tom Smith view this decline as a good thing. In a 2003 book of mine, I quoted Smith as saying that the large drop in gun ownership would “make it easier for politicians to do the right thing on guns” and pass more restrictive regulations.

Other gun control advocates have mentioned to me that they hope that if people believe fewer people own guns, that may cause others to rethink their decision to own one themselves. It is part of the reason they dramatically exaggerate the risks of having guns in the home.

The Associated Press and Time ignored other polls by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post.

These polls show that gun ownership rates have been flat over the same period. According to Gallup, household gun ownership has ranged from 51 percent in 1994 to 34 percent in 1999. In 2014, it was at 42 percent – comparable to the 43-45 percent figures during the 1970s.

A 2011 Gallup poll with the headline “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993” appears to have gotten no news coverage.


There are other measures that suggest that we should be very careful of relying too heavily on polling to gauge the level of gun ownership. For example, the nationally number of concealed handgun permits has soared over the last decade: rising from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 4.6 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2014.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) shows that the number of gun purchases has grown dramatically over time –doubling from 2006 to 2014.

---------------

I'm confused, Guy. Why did all these people respond to YOUR polls showing higher gun ownership when you said they would not respond honestly to MINE?

 

[Blues Man]

So why not just be honest and say you want to ban all semiautomatic rifles?

All that accept a magazine.

I have a semi-automatic shotgun. Plugged to 3 but could hold 5.

No reason to ban magazine fed weapons whatsoever because 99.9999% of them are never used to commit any crime

What are they used for that requires a detachable magazine that could not be accomplished without a built in, limited size magazine.

Doesn't matter. What matters is how they are actually used now and 99.999% magazine fed firearms will never be used to commit any crimes.

The fact that a minuscule fraction of people will use a gun for violence is not reason enough to put restrictions on everyone

It does matter.

To ban something that leads to mass killings that has no other use is a nobrainer.

So what can't to do with a built in smaller magazine that you can do with a detachable larger magazine?



.

The gun doesn't lead to mass killings.

If the AR 15 led to mass killings there would be a hell of a lot more of them since there are over 8 million AR 15s in private hands.

What percentage of privately owned Ar 15s are used to commit murder?

 

[Blues Man]

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

I don't think I got a clear answer so I'll keep this one short and more direct.

I don't want to discuss the 26 year time period, which I consider an extraneous variable.

Removing that variable from the discussion, it's a fact that states with more gun ownership have more gun homicides. Why is that?

It's not even a low correlation. It's a moderate to high correlation. Very distinct.

but do they have an overall higher murder rate?

Why do you want to use the term gun murder?

Is getting murdered by someone with a gun somehow worse than getting murdered by a guy with a knife?

 

[Blues Man]

Other researchers have done the same thing and found the opposite....and then you get into the chicken and egg problem.....

Are more people getting legal guns, which are different from criminals getting guns, because of the violent crime...or is gun ownership driving up the gun crime rate....

You have to think, that coming from your thought, that normal people having guns, means they are then using those guns for crime....which doesn't make any sense. Criminals drive the gun crime rate, not normal people.

Here are papers that show that concealed carry permits actually help reduce crime.....not by huge amounts, but they do lower the crime rate....interpersonal crimes...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Bartley-Cohen-Economic-Inquiry-1998.pdf


The Effect of Concealed Weapons Laws: An Extreme Bound Analysis by William Alan Bartley and Mark A Cohen, published in Economic Inquiry, April 1998 (Copy available here)

.....we find strong support for the hypothesis that the right-to-carry laws are associated with a decrease in the trend in violent crime rates.....

Paper........CCW does not increase police deaths...

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Mustard-JLE-Polic-Deaths-Gun-Control.pdf

This paper uses state-level data from 1984–96 to examine how right-to-carry laws and waiting periods affect the felonious deaths of police. Some people oppose concealed weapons carry laws because they believe these laws jeopardize law enforcement officials, who risk their lives to protect the citizenry. This paper strongly rejects this contention. States that allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons had a slightly higher likelihood of having a felonious police death and slightly higher police death rates prior to the law. After enactment of the right-to-carry laws, states exhibit a reduced likelihood of having a felonious police death rate and slightly lower rates of police deaths. States that implement waiting periods have slightly lower felonious police death rates both before and after the law. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons does not endanger the lives of officers and may help reduce their risk of being killed

========

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/tideman.pdf


Does the Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a Count Analysis Can Say By FLORENZ PLASSMANN AND T. NICOLAUS TIDEMAN, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

However, for all three crime categories the levels in years 2 and 3 after adoption of a right-to-carry law are significantly below the levels in the years before the adoption of the law, which suggests that there is generally a deterrent effect and that it takes about 1 year for this effect to emerge.

=======

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/323313

Testing for the Effects of Concealed Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness*




Carlisle E. Moody
College of William and Mary
Overall, right‐to‐carry concealed weapons laws tend to reduce violent crime. The effect on property crime is more uncertain. I find evidence that these laws also reduce burglary.
====
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Helland-Tabarrok-Placebo-Laws.pdf
Using Placebo Laws to Test “More Guns, Less Crime”∗ Eric Helland and Alexander Tabarrok

We also find, however, that the cross equation restrictions implied by the Lott-Mustard theory are supported.
-----
Surprisingly, therefore, we conclude that there is considerable support for the hypothesis that shall-issue laws cause criminals to substitute away from crimes against persons and towards crimes against property.
===========
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Maltz.pdf

Right-to-Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender Relationships By DAVID E. OLSON AND MICHAEL D. MALTZ, Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001

Our results indicated that the direction of effect of the shall-issue law on total SHR homicide rates was similar to that obtained by Lott and Mustard, although the magnitude of the effect was somewhat smaller and was statistically significant at the 7 percent level. In our analysis, which included only counties with a 1977 population of 100,000 or more, laws allowing for concealed weapons were associated with a 6.52 percent reduction in total homicides (Table 2). By comparison, Lott and Mustard found the concealed weapon dummy variable to be associated with a 7.65 percent reduction in total homicides across all counties and a 9 percent reduction in homicides when only large counties (populations of 100,000 or more) were included.43

===============

This one shows the benefits, in the billions of CCW laws...

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/Plassmann_Whitley.pdf

COMMENTS Confirming ìMore Guns, Less Crimeî Florenz Plassmann* & John Whitley**

CONCLUSION Analyzing county-level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5% and 2.3% for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 and $3 billion per year. The results are very similar to earlier estimates using county-level data from 1977 to 1996. We appreciate the continuing effort that Ayres and Donohue have made in discussing the impact of right-to-carry laws on crime rates. Yet we believe that both the new evidence provided by them as well as our new results show consistently that right-to-carry laws reduce crime and save lives. Unfortunately, a few simple mistakes lead Ayres and Donohue to incorrectly claim that crime rates significantly increase after right-to-carry laws are initially adopted and to misinterpret the significance of their own estimates that examined the year-to-year impact of the law.

=============

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...An-Exercise-in-Replication.proof_.revised.pdf

~ The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws on Crime: An Exercise in Replication1

Carlisle E. Moody College of William and Mary - Department of Economics, Virginia 23187, U.S.A. E-mail: cemood@wm.edu Thomas B. Marvell Justec Research, Virginia 23185, U.S.A. Paul R. Zimmerman U.S. Federal Trade Commission - Bureau of Economics, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Fasil Alemante College of William and Mary, Virginia 23187, U.S.A.


Abstract: In an article published in 2011, Aneja, Donohue and Zhang found that shall-issue or right-to-carry (RTC) concealed weapons laws have no effect on any crime except for a positive effect on assault. This paper reports a replication of their basic findings and some corresponding robustness checks, which reveal a serious omitted variable problem. Once corrected for omitted variables, the most robust result, confirmed using both county and state data, is that RTC laws significantly reduce murder. There is no robust, consistent evidence that RTC laws have any significant effect on other violent crimes, including assault. There is some weak evidence that RTC laws increase robbery and assault while decreasing rape. Given that the victim costs of murder and rape are much higher than the costs of robbery and assault, the evidence shows that RTC laws are socially beneficial.

=======

States with lower guns = higher murder....and assault weapon ban pointless..

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates
Mark Gius

Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).





Taking apart ayre and donahue one....




“The Debate on Shall-Issue Laws” by Carlisle e. Moody and Thomas B. Marvell, published in Econ Journal Watch, volume 5, number 3, September 2008 It is also available here..



Abstract
“Shall-issue” laws require authorities to issue concealed-weapons permits to anyone who applies, unless the applicant has a criminal record or a history of mental illness. A large number of studies indicate that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one study, an influential paper in the Stanford Law Review (2003) by Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue iii, implies that these laws lead to an increase in crime. We apply an improved version of the Ayres and Donohue method to a more extensive data set. Our analysis, as well as Ayres and Donohue’s when projected beyond a five-year span, indicates that shall-issue laws decrease crime and the costs of crime. Purists in statistical analysis object with some cause to some of methods employed both by Ayres and Donohue and by us. But our paper upgrades Ayres and Donohue, so, until the next study comes along, our paper should neutralize Ayres and Donohue’s “more guns, more crime” conclusion.

Summary and Conclusion Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shallissue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years. We extend their analysis by adding three more years of data, control for the effects of crack cocaine, control for dynamic effects, and correct the standard errors for clustering. We find that there is an initial increase in crime due to passage of the shall-issue law that is dwarfed over time by the decrease in crime associated with the post-law trend. These results are very similar to those of Ayres and Donohue, properly interpreted. The modified Ayres and Donohue model finds that shall-issue laws significantly reduce murder and burglary across all the adopting states. These laws appear to significantly increase assault, and have no net effect on rape, robbery, larceny, or auto theft. However, in the long run only the trend coefficients matter. We estimate a net benefit of $450 million per year as a result of the passage of these laws. We also estimate that, up through 2000, there was a cumulative overall net benefit of these laws of $28 billion since their passage. We think that there is credible statistical evidence that these laws lower the costs of crime. But at the very least, the present study should neutralize any “more guns, more crime” thinking based on Ayres and Donohue’s work in the Stanford Law Review. We acknowledge that, especially in light of the methodological issues of the literature in general, the magnitudes derived from our analysis of crime statistics and the supposed costs of crime might be dwarfed by other considerations in judging the policy issue. Some might contend that allowing individuals to carry a concealed weapon is a moral or cultural bad. Others might contend that greater liberty is a moral or cultural good. All we are confident in saying is that the evidence, such as it is, seems to support the hypothesis that the shall-issue law is generally beneficial with respect to its overall long run effect on crime.

Whoa, that's a lot of text for something I didn't say. I didn't say anything about gun crime rate. I'm specifically linking gun ownership rate to homicides.

It's a fact that these two measures have a moderate to high positive correlation.

But it doesn't

There are fewer guns per person in urban areas yet there is a higher murder rate in urban areas than there is in rural and semi-rural areas where there is a higher percntage of gun ownership

 

[Blues Man]

There is nothing crazy about deleting an amendment which is outdated and no longer applies to our society.

The need for the right to keep and bear arms applies today as it did in 1791; the protections provided for it by the 2nd are FAR more necessary now than ever in our history.

No, you just want to keep your guns. It's lucky for you that a powerful organization like the NRA comes up with all these snazzy arguments for you.

Why wouldn't any law abiding gun owner want to give up his guns?

My guns are not going to be used to commit murder so they are no danger to the public.

You do not curb the rights of people who have never done anything wrong

 

[Blues Man]

Your point has been brought up before. The theory by anti-gun activists is that regardless of those other factors......More Guns = More Gun crime. That is where they hang their hat.

So.....the point they miss, and I think you miss....is that over those 26 years.....whether or not normal people owning guns was a factor in reducing gun crime.....

More Guns in the hands of law abiding people did not increase the gun crime rates...

So over that 26 years.....more Americans own and actually carry guns....17.25 million Americans from about 4 million actually being able to legally carry guns.....and the gun crime rates went still went down.

So the core theory is wrong....More Guns did not = More gun crime.

Now, it is true that various factors made the murder rate go down, more police, smarter police tactics and so on.......but that isn't their argument or their point.......

Also, for one thing........if you are being attacked, and you use a gun to stop the attack....that crime didn't happen to you....

Then, I have actual research from various researchers who state that there is a correlation to decreases in interpersonal crime when more people own and carry guns...for example, there are more home invasions in Britain than here in the U.S....why? When researchers ask criminals in prison, they state they go into empty houses in the U.S. because they don't want to get shot. In Britain, the criminals don't care about people being home, because they don't have guns...and since they don't have guns, they can be tied up and questioned about where their belongings are...

I don't think I got a clear answer so I'll keep this one short and more direct.

I don't want to discuss the 26 year time period, which I consider an extraneous variable.

Removing that variable from the discussion, it's a fact that states with more gun ownership have more gun homicides. Why is that?

It's not even a low correlation. It's a moderate to high correlation. Very distinct.

That is not a fact....

The reason you want to ignore the 26 year period is because it shows that the claim that more guns = more gun crime did not come true...over 26 years of actual experience....gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%....which wouldn't have happened if more guns = more gun crime......

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

The same week Kristof's column came out, National Journal attracted major media attention with a showy piece of research and analysis headlined "The States With The Most Gun Laws See The Fewest Gun-Related Deaths." The subhead lamented: "But there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions."

Critics quickly noted that the Journal's Libby Isenstein had included suicides among "gun-related deaths" and suicide-irrelevant policies such as stand-your-ground laws among its tally of "gun laws." That meant that high-suicide, low-homicide states such as Wyoming, Alaska, and Idaho were taken to task for their liberal carry-permit policies. Worse, several of the states with what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence considers terribly lax gun laws were dropped from Isenstein's data set because their murder rates were too low!

Another of National Journal's mistakes is a common one in gun science: The paper didn't look at gun statistics in the context of overall violent crime, a much more relevant measure to the policy debate. After all, if less gun crime doesn't mean less crime overall—if criminals simply substitute other weapons or means when guns are less available—the benefit of the relevant gun laws is thrown into doubt. When Thomas Firey of the Cato Institute ran regressions of Isenstein's study with slightly different specifications and considering all violent crime, each of her effects either disappeared or reversed.

Another recent well-publicized study trying to assert a positive connection between gun laws and public safety was a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine article by the Harvard pediatrics professor Eric W. Fleegler and his colleagues, called "Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States." It offered a mostly static comparison of the toughness of state gun laws (as rated by the gun control lobbyists at the Brady Center) with gun deaths from 2007 to 2010.

"States with strictest firearm laws have lowest rates of gun deaths," a Boston Globeheadline then announced. But once again, if you take the simple, obvious step of separating out suicides from murders, the correlations that buttress the supposed causations disappear. As John Hinderaker headlined his reaction at the Power Line blog, "New Study Finds Firearm Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides."

Among other anomalies in Fleegler's research, Hinderaker pointed out that it didn't include Washington, D.C., with its strict gun laws and frequent homicides. If just one weak-gun-law state, Louisiana, were taken out of the equation, "the remaining nine lowest-regulation states have an average gun homicide rate of 2.8 per 100,000, which is 12.5% less than the average of the ten states with the strictest gun control laws," he found.

October interview with Slate and found it wanting: "There have been studies that have essentially toted up the number of laws various states have on the books and examined the association between the number of laws and rates of firearm death," said Wintemute, who is a medical doctor and researcher at the University of California, Davis. "That's really bad science, and it shouldn't inform policymaking."

Wintemute thinks the factor such studies don't adequately consider is the number of people in a state who have guns to begin with, which is generally not known or even well-estimated on levels smaller than national, though researchers have used proxies from subscribers to certain gun-related magazines and percentages of suicides committed with guns to make educated guesses. "Perhaps these laws decrease mortality by decreasing firearm ownership, in which case firearm ownership mediates the association," Wintemute wrote in a 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine paper. "But perhaps, and more plausibly, these laws are more readily enacted in states where the prevalence of firearm ownership is low—there will be less opposition to them—and firearm ownership confounds the association."

------

Would Cracking Down on Guns in the U.S. Really Reduce Violence? , by Robert VerBruggen, National Review

There is actually no simple correlation between states’ homicide rates and their gun-ownership rates or gun laws.
This has been shown numerous times, by different people, using different data sets.

A year ago, I took state gun-ownership levels reported by the Washington Post (based on a Centers for Disease Control survey) and compared them with murder rates from the FBI: no correlation.

The legal scholar Eugene Volokh has compared states’ gun laws (as rated by the anti-gun Brady Campaign) with their murder rates: no correlation.

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner, a former National Review reporter, failed to find a correlation even between gun ownership in a state and gun murders specifically, an approach that sets aside the issue of whether gun availability has an effect on non-gun crime. (Guns can deter unarmed criminals, for instance, and criminals without guns may simply switch to other weapons.)


, I recently redid my analysis with a few tweaks. Instead of relying on a single year of survey data, I averaged three years. (The CDC survey, the best available for state-level numbers, included data on gun ownership only in 2001, 2002, and 2004. Those were the years I looked at.)

And instead of comparing CDC data with murder rates from a different agency, I relied on the CDC’s own estimates of death by assault in those years. Again: no correlation.

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.
More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.
Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.
There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.

It is a fact. I ran the numbers myself. Give me Pearson's correlation coefficient for the numbers and tell me what you come up with. I'm getting 0.698.

Once again, you're giving me a block of text regarding gun crime. I'm not talking about gun crime so I don't see the use in posting or reading those links.

I'm specifically talking about the connection between gun ownership rate vs gun homicides.

Again why is it you think getting murdered by gun is worse than getting murdered in any of a million other ways?

There are more guns per person in NH than there is in CA yet the murder rate in CA is 4 times higher than that of NH

NH has far looser gun laws than CA
The only conclusion one can draw from that is that gun laws do not lower the murder rate

 

[Blues Man]

Less than a third of Americans own a gun. But that's still 100 million, and the average would be that each of them owns three or four. Of course, many own more than that and many own only one, like a handgun for personal protection when out in the city or a shotgun in the closet for when varmints hit the yard.

The danger of so many guns is that when one of those 100 million people has a really bad nasty day or goes a little off the wall mentally, all that person has to do is grab the gun and start shooting. That doesn't even take into account pissed off teenagers who feel "dissed" by a FB post or who are challenged to kill a rival gang member to be a big "man." It plays out every day in domestics, in the streets, and we haven't even mentioned criminals who shoot people for hire and use guns to hold up stores etc.
All those guns, for all those reasons, need to be much more strictly limited and handed out much more cautiously.

And yet the murder rates of states with lax gun laws are in many cases lower than the states with extremely strict gun laws

Gun laws that are not enforced have zero effect on the murder rate.

We have proof that when state and federal gun laws that we already have are followed and strictly enforced that crime and murder rates do decrease.

 

[Blues Man]

Less than a third of Americans own a gun. But that's still 100 million, and the average would be that each of them owns three or four. Of course, many own more than that and many own only one, like a handgun for personal protection when out in the city or a shotgun in the closet for when varmints hit the yard.

The danger of so many guns is that when one of those 100 million people has a really bad nasty day or goes a little off the wall mentally, all that person has to do is grab the gun and start shooting. That doesn't even take into account pissed off teenagers who feel "dissed" by a FB post or who are challenged to kill a rival gang member to be a big "man." It plays out every day in domestics, in the streets, and we haven't even mentioned criminals who shoot people for hire and use guns to hold up stores etc.
All those guns, for all those reasons, need to be much more strictly limited and handed out much more cautiously.

They aren't handed out and the people using them to commit murder are already banned from buying, owning and carrying them...and when they are caught with the gun they can already be arrested....

What about that is so hard for you to understand?

What about the fact that Americans use their legal guns to stop violent criminals 1.1 million times a year...according to the Centers for Disease Control.......

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades. Thanks to folks like you and your handler, the NRA. I don't know what bullshit numbers you are going to quote me now, but I know that for a fact. It doesn't surprise me though that you would tie the truth into a knot and hope to get away with it.

No it hasn't

The only restriction on the CDC was they not use any money granted to promote gun control

There was no prohibition on doing the research and publishing the results

 

[Blues Man]

The Center for Disease Control has been effectively prohibited from conducting any meaningful research on guns in the country for decades.

Someone lied to you - the CDC has -all kinds- of information and research regarding gun violence.

Don't ignore the Dickey Amendment. Don't you dare.
the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1] In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.[2]

The amendment was lobbied for by the NRA. The amendment is named after its author Jay Dickey, a Republican member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas.[2] Many commentators have described this amendment as a "ban" on gun violence research by the CDC.[3]
Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Dickey doesn't prohibit the CDC from doing any research on guns as they relate to the health of the people in this country.

Your own quote explicitly shows that the only restriction was that the money granted not be used to promote gun control.

 

[Blues Man]

useless.

Keeps honest people honest, keeps criminals laughing

How would it be either?

Gangbangers don't worry about background checks

I’m not talking about gang bangers

I’m not talking about gang bangers

oh....

you want universal checks, except for gangbangers?

When are you people going to get in into your little minds, universal isn't going to work?

Nothing is going to work to stop gun violence but a better background check system will help prevent some to get weapons which will result in some prevented gun violence. Some is better than none. Agreed?

but a better background check system

Support the one in place, first.

Someone lies on the Form 4473, call the cops, 30 days minimum.

Catch a straw buyer?

a year in jail, minimum.

Enforce current laws on the books before making new ones.

Are we not enforcing the laws on the books?

no we're not.

When we do they work

Virginia Project Exile

Study 1
Firearm Homicide Rates, Project Exile
Rosenfeld and colleagues (2005) found a statistically significant intervention effect for Project Exile. Firearm homicides in Richmond exhibited a 22 percent yearly decline, compared with the average reduction of about 10 percent per year for other large U.S. cities. The difference is statistically significant.

Now what would happen if every state did the same thing?

 

[Blues Man]

2aguy

I ran the numbers for a few more measurements and I think the results are interesting. I'll post some of them.

Gun ownership rate vs Gun Death Rate (Includes suicide, self-defense, and accidents) This is the one I referred to before.

Correlation = 0.698. This is a moderate to strong positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people die from guns.

Gun ownership rate vs Accidental Death Rate (Doesn't include car accidents)

Correlation = 0.138. This is a weak positive correlation. It's slightly upward. I'm curious what this would look like if it specifically looked at accidental gun-related deaths. Interestingly, this is more positive than the slightly negative correlation comparing gun ownership rates vs murder rates. (-0.095)

Gun ownership rate vs Suicide Rate (includes various forms of suicide)

Correlation = 0.553. This is moderate positive correlation. In general, more gun owners means more people commit suicide.

This could be because people who want to kill themselves will go out and buy a gun to do so. Or it could be because people who already have a gun in the house, and have a bad day, are more likely to finish themselves off. I suspect it's a bit of both, though it's probably not possible to tell for sure.

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

Correlation = 0.111. This is another weak positive correlation. It's only slightly upward. Isn't gun ownership supposed to prevent these kinds of incidents? That doesn't appear to be the case.


These are a few negative statistics showing that more guns owners are correlated with more gun deaths. The positive impact of preventing murder is highly over-romanticized in my opinion as it's the only negative correlation and it's the weakest of all the numbers I've calculated. Even violent crime, which gun ownership is also intended to prevent, is going in the wrong direction. Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

What are you doing? Dividing Gun Death Rate by number of guns? How do you determine "Gun Ownership Rate?" What is your population of data? It's hard to understand the results without explaining your data collection and statistical calculations.

Sorry, I was talking to him and I had already shown him the links I was using.

Here's where the gun ownership rate is coming from: Gun ownership by state
Gun death rate is just the number of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people. Here is the firearm death rate: Firearm death rates in the United States by state - Wikipedia

I'm simply calculating the Pearson's correlation coefficient by state, comparing a few different measures to see how closely correlated they are.

Let me know if you need any other links so you can follow along.

Those numbers include suicides and suicide is not a crime.

more than 2\3 of "gun deaths" are suicides. Suicide is a choice and that is all it is. There is absolutely no evidence that people who commit suicide with a gun would not have committed suicide if a gun was not available