Dumb arses and guns...

[PTT]

@ HrkDrvr

Not one of the 5 articles you linked attempts anything different to the one you previously linked which I showed to be flawed.
Show me any other study done like the Kellerman study.A case control study can be carried out by anyone who cares to do so. and has been done. Has your google-fu, so face-value strong when trying to find debunks of the study, failed you here? For example, there is a case control study which looks at firearms and adolescent suicide (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8213677), or a national case control study on suicide and homicide risk associated with firearms in the home (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12764330), and that after another 20 seconds of my precious time.
I can cut & paste article upon article and study upon study showing causality contrary to Kellerman. You can find only one study that supports that view - Kellerman's.As shown, not true. And as you say, follow the money: your articles have thus far been solely on pro-gun sites, making them overtly biased. Kellerman's is available on a universities' website and funded by CDC, while the last two are on the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health website.
The crime rate data I provided was from 2011, which you seemed to dismiss, so for grins, I pulled the stats from the FBI for the three counties in question for 1992. King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Shelby Co (Memphis) 1552 and 28 and Cleveland 604 and 11.1. National averages for '92 757 and 9.3. And just like today, in 1992 I'd rather live in Seattle than Memphis or Cleveland. So while you completely dismissed my 2011 data because it wasn't 1992 data, my point is that the relativity is largely the same.Clearly not. While your previous "point" was that all of those areas close to or well above the national average in 2011, the data shows that in 1992 two were below the national average, which pretty much invalidates your original point regarding the data bot being representative. Sure, I'd rather not live in Memphis either, but that's no big surprise, nor does it counter anything I've said so far.
You also disregarded my point about the continual decrease in both violent crime and murder rates and the correlation of the increase in concealed carry in all of the states. There are fewer deaths with guns this year than last despite there being more guns in households this year.You've failed to provide any data at all. What needs addressing?
So you cannot possibly correlate guns in households with increased gun deaths. And while I concede correlation does not equal causation, in this instance, it flies in the face of your 'common sense'.That's a chuckle - I've never claimed "common sense" as a support for my argument at all. And if the data shows a correlation then there is highly likely to be (I can even tell you how likely, of you like!) a correlation.
Here's some more data: Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership ← Inductio Ex Machina (http://mark.reid.name/iem/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html)
I'm glad you find your own gun control history a yawn. I suppose that's because you lot all just laid down and went to sleep. It is precisely this characteristic subtle erosion of liberty and rights that is assuaged by the passage of time that makes it all feel okie-dokie. That won't happen here.It's not the history I find a yawn, it's the continual use of anecdotal "evidence" as some sort of crutch. It's pointless lantern-swinging which doesn't actually counter any data at all; it merely proves that there are statistical outliers no matter where you look.

@ 500N
A well known tactic of the vocal minority.What makes you think those who want gun control are a minority? Poll: Majority of Americans back stricter gun laws - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564597/poll-majority-of-americans-back-stricter-gun-laws/)

[500N]

PTT

Re Polls

I wouldn't rely on them too much. Often media driven and questionable questions. i know how to write questions to get the answers I need.

The vocal minority sit there and skew the data by sending out an
email to everyone to log on and do multiple responses.

We now do the same to counter balance because we were losing all
the polls. Now we don't lose them the newspapers / TV programs etc
just delete them as they don't support the angle they are pushing.


You know the other thing we have noticed. They are ahead during the day
until the shooters / hunters come back from work and then we tend to overtake them in the evening :O

[mary meagher]

O well. Churchill said that jaw jaw was better than war war. And the contributors to this interesting thread could win prizes for jaw jaw.
I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....

Republican state legislature will probably pass NRA sponsored laws.

I would much rather live in New York City. State leglislature there shows good sense.

And all you chaps who believe or pour scorn on statistics, have you read that interesting little book called Freakonomics, by Stephen Levit?

PS I still don't know what this all has to do with military aircrew?

[PTT]

@ 500N
I don't rely on polls; you're the one claiming to know who the majority and the minority are. Evidence please.

@ mary
Freakonomics is a fun enough read, but doesn't actually say anything about statistics themselves, rather it looks at some examples where statistics "say" surprising things. "Thinking Statisticallly" by Uri Bram is a good primer and well written for the layman.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

sevenstrokeroll,

Excellent post. You've just persuaded me. I like warm beer and often wear the kilt. Best you keep all your guns and keep killing your kids.

:ugh:

Duncs:ok:

[Airborne Aircrew]

HrkDrvr

And you, like Kellerman, completely ignored the times when guns save lives.Here's (http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx) 162 pages of such stories. Assuming each page has approximately as many examples as the first page, (40), that appears to be almost 6500 times in my lifetime or an average of about one incident every three days. I'd call that statistically significant and a nice easy calculation that can't be slewed by "weighting" the results.

PTT:

One wonders what the likelihood of dying by the gun of people who break into armed homes? I'll bet it's a lot higher than 2.7 times that of some criminal that breaks into the unarmed home. So, weighing the figures I'm quite happy to accept Kellerman's questionable figures knowing that the guns in my house raise the chances of my burglar dying almost infinitely over him breaking into an unarmed household. Thank you for helping to prove the point for me. :ok:

Mary:

I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....You don't need to worry about me, I'm a well armed, well protected, responsible gun owner. I can look after myself... ;)

[500N]

AA

Have you seen this photo outside of a house in the US ?

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/7/8/0/7/9/5/my-neighbor-is-unarmed-39219775365.jpeg

It says

"My net door neighbor wants to BAN all GUNS.

Their house is NOT ARMED.

Out of RESPECT for their opinions, I promise NOT
to use MY GUNS to PROTECT THEM.

and a big red arrow pointing to the house next door :O

[PTT]

@ AA

For the nth time, it's not random armed intruders who do most of the killing. It's people who are known to you. I don't doubt you could protect yourself from said armed intruder, but he's not the main threat.
Your list of anecdotes, assuming your figure of 6500 is correct, goes back to 1959, so at least 53 years, so a massive 123 a year. That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gun (source (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf) - CDC).

In all honesty, I'm done with this. The same tired old arguments keep coming up, specifically about protection from unknown intruders, and those who keep bringing them up simply aren't willing to accept that the main danger is from their own family and/or friends. If someone wants to show some actual studies of the protective benefit of guns then I'd be truly delighted to read it (and no, AA, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data").

[sevenstrokeroll]

duncan...that's the of yo you isn't it?

we'll keep our guns and will try to make sure that they are only used in a legal manner.

and we do hope you take piers morgan back to your side of the pond.

wow...australian cops don't have a right to their gun on off duty hours...what a waste.

you all realize that our pilots are allowed (after training) to carry guns on the flight deck of airliners, right? (USA)

[Airborne Aircrew]

PTT:

Your list of anecdotes, assuming your figure of 6500 is correct, goes back to 1959, so at least 53 years, so a massive 123 a yearThanks for checking my maths... 123/year = "about one every three days".. :D

That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gunI don't know... I haven't read all 6500 to try to determine how many potential victims were saved but, as our dear President says "if it only saves one life then it's worth it"... :ok:

For the nth time, it's not random armed intruders who do most of the killing.I don't care. I care about the random armed intruder. I don't care that Kellerman thinks I'm 2.7 times more likely to die because I have a gun. I'm far more interested in the fact that the intruder has a much higher chance of dying than my 2.7 times if he enters my house. He has an infinitely higher chance of death in my house than he does entering the unarmed house down the road. I like those odds. Again, thanks for helping me clarify that... :ok:

[HrkDrvr]

I would much rather live in New York City. State leglislature there shows good sense.
And you're far more likely to die a violent death in NYC than almost anywhere else in the USA. The per capita rates for the greater NYC/NJ/PA metropolitan area are virtually double the national average.

And all you chaps who believe or pour scorn on statistics, have you read that interesting little book called Freakonomics, by Stephen Levit?Yes, I've read it. Interesting theories. As I mentioned before, if you cannot measure what is meaningful, you will ascribe undue importance to that which you can measure. The same holds true here.

Not one of the 5 articles you linked attempts anything different to the one you previously linked which I showed to be flawed.
You showed it to be flawed because you disagree with the author's premise of how to use the data. You choose the use the data differently. We're back to lies, damned lies, and statistics at this point. I choose to believe Kellerman is flawed based on how he uses his data. So we're at an impasse. But worse, Kellerman is dated material.

And as you say, follow the money: your articles have thus far been solely on pro-gun sites, making them overtly biased. Kellerman's is available on a universities' website and funded by CDC, while the last two are on the US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health website.
The re-categorization of gun deaths as a health problem is illogical at best. Who do you think is going to disagree with the state-sponsored universities and health departments? Other universities? Typically not. Hence, the majority of sites that challenge Kellerman's theories and methodologies are decidedly pro-gun sites. I am under no illusion that they do not potentially stand to gain monetarily if they were sponsored by the actual gun manufacturers, but most of them are not. Most are grass roots websites "fighting the man". ;)

While your previous "point" was that all of those areas close to or well above the national average in 2011, the data shows that in 1992 two were below the national average, which pretty much invalidates your original point regarding the data bot being representative.
Actually, if you look again, you'll find that murder with guns was higher in all three. Violent crime was somewhat lower in two of them.

The other thing to note about Kellerman is that it was conducted over 20 years ago and the peak of the US violent crime rate. Since that time, despite more guns being produced, purchased, and used, both violent crime rates and gun-related murders have steadily declined. Florida pass the first broad shall-issue concealed-carry law in 1987 and as I've shown, states quickly followed once they saw Florida's crime begin to drop. Remember, the 1980s in Florida was a very high crime time with the drug wars in S. Florida - I know, I grew up in Miami and didn't leave for college until '87. Miami Vice wasn't that far fetched.

But an interesting thing happened. Despite the nation-wide cries of the 'wild, wild west' in Florida occurring due to the "irresponsible" allowance of every law abiding citizen to arm and protect themselves, Florida's crime dropped dramatically and swiftly, particularly in the high-density urban areas where the majority of crime occurs. Consequently, in the early 1990s, several states began passing concealed/open carry laws. Many of the western states already had these laws on the books (NM, WY, MT, ID, UT, etc).

Kellerman's 1992 data is virtually irrelevant today, even if he was accurate (which I will not concede because he does not accurately include self-defense uses of guns preventing crime) because the nature of crime and the statistical occurrence of crime have radically changed to far lower rates than 1992.

You've failed to provide any data at all. What needs addressing?
On the contrary. I have provided national data for 1992 and 2011. I'd like to believe that it's taken as given that there are more guns today. Are you really unwilling to concede that there are more guns today in the USA than in 1992? Are you really unwilling to concede that both our violent crime and murder-with-guns rate have not declined every year? Are you unwilling to concede that in 1992 less than 10 of our 50 states had a broad shall-issue concealed carry law? Or must I really go cull those numbers from the FBI again (their website is not the most user friendly at times)?

That's a chuckle - I've never claimed "common sense" as a support for my argument at all. And if the data shows a correlation then there is highly likely to be (I can even tell you how likely, of you like!) a correlation.No, but you certainly imply it. So, how do you manipulate the data that shows an increase in gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime and murder-with-guns rate to support your position?

It's not the history I find a yawn, it's the continual use of anecdotal "evidence" as some sort of crutch. It's pointless lantern-swinging which doesn't actually counter any data at all; it merely proves that there are statistical outliers no matter where you look.
It's not 'anecdotal evidence', it's your own history of demonizing of guns and taking them away from citizens. It's inclusion was not for any portion of the statistical debate, rather, to illustrate that you have been accustomed to having your rights removed, so therefore find it acceptable to demand it of others. It's a bit of sour grapes and good for the goose mixed together. I find it illustrative for the Americans who wish to accept "sensible" laws to understand where they lead. This isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, it is proven. Like I said, I hope Newtown isn't our Dunblane. The fallacy of "if it saves one life it's worth it" is just ludicrous.:hmm:

Enough statistics.

The real issue is that,at the end of the day, the USA will always have a relatively high murder rate with guns simply because we have them. It's emotionally evocative to compare straight gun death rates between countries without guns to countries with guns, but I find the overall violent crime rate to be far more indicative of how 'polite' a society is, not which weapons we kill each other with. If you truly wish to compare gun murders, compare them between countries that have access to guns. I think you'll find we're near the bottom of that list. Besides, I'd rather be shot than bludgeoned or stabbed. And it is interesting to note that the current attempt to ban specific styles and types of guns is attempting to ban the style and type least used to kill people (about 300-325 total, not per capita) based solely on physical appearance. That is disingenuous at best. If the gun control people were truly interested in public safety, they would go after hand guns. But that is too ingrained in our culture, too accepted and it wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in h3ll. So, they grandstand after a drug-induced nut job kills kids and go after the "scary" looking weapons, give them new names, and compare them to military weapons and ask why you need one. All straw man arguments and red herrings. They just want a legal standing to categorize some guns as "bad" so they can get the rest of them later. The remainder of the irrelevant "common sense" gun laws that politicians blather on about are nothing more than collecting data on guns as a health issue and creating registries to make future confiscation feasible. This isn't tinfoil hat stuff, it's proven fact. It happened in the UK and Australia and that's why your gun control history is relevant to the discussion.

[The Helpful Stacker]

I have a certain sympathy for the poor chap who lives in Detroit.....

Whilst I love the city of my birth handy maps such as these are what convinced my family and I to move to Windsor OT when we move back to NA.

Detroit Crime Map (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/120606001)

Windsor Crime Map (http://www.police.windsor.on.ca/Public%20Safety/crime_maps/crime_maps.htm)

Twin cities, similar levels of gun ownership, yet poles apart. A compare and contrast piece in the Windsor Star (http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/12/04/a-tale-of-two-cities-windsor-and-detroit-murder-rates-show-stark-contrast/).

[Airborne Aircrew]

PTT:

Another question... There are three people resident in my house. Do we all have a 2.7 times higher chance of death by a gun or, since the study concentrated on households without specifying the number of residents can we share the risk equally amongst the residents meaning I really only have a .9 increase in risk. It's probably good to be a Catholic in this case because once you get to 8 kids you've practically erased the increased risk...

I need more kids or a bunch of lodgers... :}

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

sevenstrokeroll,

duncan...that's the of yo you isn't it?

(I have no idea what you are talking about)

we'll keep our guns and will try to make sure that they are only used in a legal manner.

(That sounds like a perfectly sensible course of action)

and we do hope you take piers morgan back to your side of the pond.

(No thanks. You took him in. You can keep him)

wow...australian cops don't have a right to their gun on off duty hours...what a waste.

(I'm inclined to agree.)

you all realize that our pilots are allowed (after training) to carry guns on the flight deck of airliners, right? (USA)

(No, I didn't. Moreover, after training, I have no issue with anyone carrying a weapon.)

Duncs:ok:

PS. I'm off to wear the kilt in celebration of the birth of Robert Burns (25 Jan) and I intend to drink a number of warm beers.

[mary meagher]

HrkDrvr, AA, etc.

Can I gently persuade you chaps to read the entire article in the Windsor Star that is flagged up by The Helpful Stacker?

That is, assuming you are not completely unwilling to read something that differs from your fixed ideas?

And I still don't see the relevance of this topic to Military Aircrew......

[henra]

That compares to the >100,000 homicides per year by gun (source (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf) - CDC).


Not wanting to get involved in the argument itself, but are you sure you did read the document properly?

I'm reading 11.078 gun related homicides (out of 16.259 total) for 2010.
That is quite a difference to the > 100.000 you mentioned and is less than 1/10th of accidents of all kinds and ~1,5% of all deaths.
If you consider that many of the gun related homicides are mutual gang killings, the probability of Joe Average being shot to death at home or on the street appears not to be that dramatically higher than the probability of being stabbed to death under similar circumstances here in good old Europe.
Being in a major urban area vs. rural area is likely to have a much much higher impact on probability of getting oneself deliberately killed by someone.

Back to lurking...

[PTT]

@ HrkDrvrYou showed it to be flawed because you disagree with the author's premise of how to use the data.Your author didn't use any data, he criticised someone else's use of it, and in a manner which was flawed: he ignored processes used while criticising those same processes later in the study!
We're back to lies, damned lies, and statistics at this point. I choose to believe Kellerman is flawed based on how he uses his data.Again, it's lies, damned lies, and people who misuse or misunderstand statistics. You fall into the last group.
The re-categorization of gun deaths as a health problem is illogical at best.Really? So death isn't a health issue now?
Who do you think is going to disagree with the state-sponsored universities and health departments? Other universities? Typically not.Anyone with the data, methodology, and intellectual honesty to do so in a valid manner. I'd expect that to come out of other universities, certainly: such establishments are in an almost constant state of discussion on such matters.
Actually, if you look again, you'll find that murder with guns was higher in all three. Violent crime was somewhat lower in two of them.No, murders (you did not specify by gun, and I have no idea if your source does either) was higher than the national avarage in one, about the same in another, and lower in still another.
Kellerman's 1992 data is virtually irrelevant today, even if he was accurate (which I will not concede because he does not accurately include self-defense uses of guns preventing crime) because the nature of crime and the statistical occurrence of crime have radically changed to far lower rates than 1992.The nature of shooting people with a gun has changed? How do you figure that? I'll grant that the overall incidence has changed, and that a new study would be welcome, but to claim that the statistics have totally changed based on a lack of data is nonsense. The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed.
Since that time, despite more guns being produced, purchased, and used, both violent crime rates and gun-related murders have steadily declined.
...
Despite the nation-wide cries of the 'wild, wild west' in Florida occurring due to the "irresponsible" allowance of every law abiding citizen to arm and protect themselves, Florida's crime dropped dramatically and swiftly, particularly in the high-density urban areas where the majority of crime occurs.
...
I'd like to believe that it's taken as given that there are more guns today. Are you really unwilling to concede that there are more guns today in the USA than in 1992? Are you really unwilling to concede that both our violent crime and murder-with-guns rate have not declined every year? Are you unwilling to concede that in 1992 less than 10 of our 50 states had a broad shall-issue concealed carry law? Or must I really go cull those numbers from the FBI again (their website is not the most user friendly at times)?
...
So, how do you manipulate the data that shows an increase in gun ownership and a decrease in violent crime and murder-with-guns rate to support your position?
http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg
The point of the above graph is that choosing two sets of data in which there is even a very strong correlation does not mean that there is actually any underlying meaning between the correlation. You have to look at multiple factors before you can come to any conclusion of that ilk. That's the purpose of a multivariate study such as Kellerman's, and is one reason why your assertion that more guns = less crime is flawed. There are several others, including cherrypicking of data (what about other countries/states where there has been an increase in guns/change in crime stats?) and a lack of datapoints, meaning your margins of error are huge (you have about 20, one each year from 1992 to now).
No, but you certainly imply it.Please don't confuse what I am implying with what you are inferring.
It's not 'anecdotal evidence', it's your own history of demonizing of guns and taking them away from citizens.Read the "misleading vividness" link I posted for you again. It was in the "Yawn" I gave when you first posted the anecdote.
It's inclusion was not for any portion of the statistical debate, rather, to illustrate that you have been accustomed to having your rights removed, so therefore find it acceptable to demand it of others.Sub-amateur psychoanalysis as well as sub-amateur statistical analysis now? Your portfolio expands ;)
at the end of the day, the USA will always have a relatively high murder rate with guns simply because we have them.Exactly! That is what I have been saying all along, and here you are agreeing with me!
If you truly wish to compare gun murders, compare them between countries that have access to guns. I think you'll find we're near the bottom of that list.No, you're not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate).
They just want a legal standing to categorize some guns as "bad" so they can get the rest of them later.Despite your protestations, this is tinfoil hat stuff. "They"? Really? And, frankly, it's not what I am suggesting at all. I don't think guns are "bad", just dangerous and, like anything dangerous, you should get a suitable level of education before you are allowed to use it.

@ AA
I don't care.And that just proves that you are closed-minded.
PTT:

Another question... There are three people resident in my house. Do we all have a 2.7 times higher chance of death by a gun or, since the study concentrated on households without specifying the number of residents can we share the risk equally amongst the residents meaning I really only have a .9 increase in risk. It's probably good to be a Catholic in this case because once you get to 8 kids you've practically erased the increased risk...

I need more kids or a bunch of lodgers... You're coming across as a flat-earth hick. Ridiculing that which you don't understand simply makes you look dumb. Again, I suggest you ask your ex-wife about matters statistical.

@ henra
You're absolutely right - I was basing it on 3.6 per 100,000 and factoring up for 310m people. I must have added or missed a zero in there. Typo, my bad, and thanks for pointing it out. That's why I link to my sources ;)
11,000 is still several orders of magnitude more than the 123 per year which AA mentioned, which was the point being made: far, far more people die from guns than are protected by them.
If you consider that many of the gun related homicides are mutual gang killings, the probability of Joe Average being shot to death at home or on the street appears not to be that dramatically higher than the probability of being stabbed to death under similar circumstances here in good old Europe.What data are you basing that on?

[sevenstrokeroll]

duncan



I hope you have a nice time celebrating burns...duncan is a well known yo yo company and they made the best yo yos (children's toy and a deadly weapon in the philipines I think...no joke).

how about sending piers morgan to to the Mid Ocean meating point and we both leave him there. what a goon.!!!!!

[henra]

What data are you basing that on?

Basically by looking at the rough numbers from Germany, the Country where I'm from. Btw being considered as one of the safest countries in Europe regarding Homicide. In the statistics I saw a few years ago only Switzerland could compete with Germany in that regard, despite Switzerland funnily also has rather liberal Gun laws - probably at least as liberal as the US.

Here in Germany we have roughly 2000 homicides annually of which less than 1000 are rated as first degree murder.

Looking at the fact that the US population is roughly 4 times as big that leaves a factor of 2 for the homicide rate. Considering that in Germany we don't have much Gang violence and considering that the bulk of homicides are Gang related in the US I conclude that there is not a huge difference in the net probability for Non- Gang members in the US vs. Germany and thus Europe.

The real differentiator for Homicide rate are probably rather social/economic factors, Switzerland being a point in case.
Rich Country, liberal Gun Laws, low homicide, low crime rate.
Germany:
Medium wealthy Country, strict Gun Laws, low homicide rate, medium crime rate.
UK: Don't know exactly, the somewhat dated figures I saw were not that far off the German figures but slightly worse. But that was a maybe 10year old statistic. May have changed since.

Edit: Numbers are sometimes a bit difficult to compare as the definition of murder and homicide differs slightly in the different judicial systems.

[Airborne Aircrew]

PTT:

And that just proves that you are closed-minded.What a remarkably silly statement to make. That statement in itself demonstrates your limited reasoning. You can quote all the statistical mumbo jumbo you like but it doesn't alter the fact that to equate my desire to have a better chance of killing an armed intruder than being mythically "wiped out" by my six year old to my closed mindedness is quite preposterous.

Again, I suggest you ask your ex-wife about matters statistical.Don't worry, I will... The very next time I see her... Unsure when that will be but Kellerman's estimate that I am 43 times more likely to die by gun, or is it 2.7... whatever... will possibly help to facilitate that meeting in a more timely fashion... Better yet, I'll ask the armed intruder to ask her thank you...

[brickhistory]

I'm off to wear the kilt in celebration of the birth of Robert Burns (25
Jan) and I intend to drink a number of warm beers.


Enjoy!


Me? I'm off to exercise a product of the Walther Company several hundred times this evening.

I believe the German Air Force crews carry ones like it so there's the tie-in to military aviation! :ok:

[Airborne Aircrew]

Brick:

Me? I'm off to exercise a product of the Walther Company several hundred times this evening.

Keep your once fired brass... You can sell it to take the sting out of restocking ammo... :ok:

[PTT]

@ henra
What I meant was where are you getting the data on gang-related vs other crime, both for the US and elsewhere.
Looking at the fact that the US population is roughly 4 times as big that leaves a factor of 2 for the homicide rate.Not at all. Rates are directly comparable. Germany has a homicide rate of 0.0819 per 100,000 population whereas the US is 44 times that at 3.6 per 100,000 (German data from WHO (http://data.euro.who.int/dmdb/) using data source B - comparison between countries - ICD10 countries and causes Y22-24, US source already cited). For your suggestion that the "Joe Average" rate is the same in both places then 43 out of every 44 gun homicides in the US would have to be gang related with none being gang related in Germany. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am asking where you are getting your data to say which is and which is not gang related. I'm also curious as to why you think gang related deaths are dismissable.
Numbers are sometimes a bit difficult to compare as the definition of murder and homicide differs slightly in the different judicial systems.Very true, which is why the German data I used was inclusive of all causes of death by firearm regardless of intent. I believe the US data is for homicide, which also includes all intents.

@ AA
What a remarkably silly statement to make. That statement in itself demonstrates your limited reasoning. You can quote all the statistical mumbo jumbo you like but it doesn't alter the fact that to equate my desire to have a better chance of killing an armed intruder than being mythically "wiped out" by my six year old to my closed mindedness is quite preposterous.It was your comment that you "don't care" which is closed minded. It simply shows that it really doesn't matter what evidence you are shown, you will never change your mind. That's pretty much the definition of closed minded. I'm quite willing to change my mind but, despite repeated requests, nobody has actually linked to a valid study which shows that guns make you safer.

[Airborne Aircrew]

PTT:

It was your comment that you "don't care" which is closed minded. It simply shows that it really doesn't matter what evidence you are shown, you will never change your mind. That's pretty much the definition of closed minded. I'm quite willing to change my mind but, despite repeated requests, nobody has actually linked to a valid study which shows that guns make you safer. Again, I'll say poppycock. Your treasured study claims, (after reassessments which confirms the author's ability to take a dataset and manipulate it), that I have a 2.7 times better chance of dying from a gun because my house has one or more. But what it does not take into account is the fact that, in an armed household the thing I'm most worried about, (the armed intruder), won't meet a happy end at the end of one of my weapons. So really your study, while it sounds wonderful, doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that if an armed intruder enters Kellerman's perfect house he's golden, if he enters an armed house his likelihood of assuming room temperature is increased infinitely.

Thus, the educated gun owner has no worry about Kellerman's mental meanderings.

[finestkind]

You are right. One must be able defend oneself. So I guess you agree with North Korea's continual development of nuclear weapons.

AA

If it was only you that was 2.7 times more likely to die because you own a gun, fine. But if it is your family, children, friends well I guess that ok as well, apart from the fact you do know these people.

[HrkDrvr]

Again, it's lies, damned lies, and people who misuse or misunderstand statistics. You fall into the last group.
Your ad hominem attacks do not eliminate the fact that there are multiple ways to manipulate data. Kellerman chooses to ignore some data (self defense) and manipulate the rest in manners that support his sponsors. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to find things that support his sponsors when conducting a study.

Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory?

Really? So death isn't a health issue now?
Straw man argument. Nobody said that. I said that guns are not a health issue. Death due to guns is a crime or social issue. Not health. When the government controls access to health care as our government is currently trying to do, they will dictate lifestyle choices in exchange for access. Heck, they're trying to limit lifestyle choices right now in NY by limiting the size of soft drinks, banning trans-fats, and multiple other things the zealot in office there has mandated. If you do not see the concern of gun rights people over the government classifying guns as a health issue, you're being willfully ignorant.

No, murders (you did not specify by gun, and I have no idea if your source does either) was higher than the national avarage in one, about the same in another, and lower in still another.
Read again. There were two stats provided for each area, violent crime total (which includes all murder) and gun-related murder and non-negligent homicide (which I'm pretty sure is specific to guns). It is one of the key ways the FBI delineates the data in the Uniform Crime Report, so my source did as well. It's available on the web if you'd like to peruse it.

Anyone with the data, methodology, and intellectual honesty to do so in a valid manner. I'd expect that to come out of other universities, certainly: such establishments are in an almost constant state of discussion on such matters.
Actually, no. You don't seem to know much about our university system. The overwhelming majority are sponsored by the state and even the private institutions receive many millions in grants from the government. They all tend to be quite liberal/left/socialistic for the most part. So, no, I wouldn't expect any university to really combat another university on this particular issue. In fact, most social issues tend to be generally agreed upon by the universities. Was the Kellerman study done by a university? I didn't look...I thought it was an ER doctor.

The nature of shooting people with a gun has changed? How do you figure that? I'll grant that the overall incidence has changed, and that a new study would be welcome, but to claim that the statistics have totally changed based on a lack of data is nonsense. The null hypothesis is that nothing has changed.
Another straw man argument. The nature of crime does indeed change as does the study of it. The incidences change and the criminals change too. My university degree is in criminology, so I'm well versed in the ever changing nature of crime. Crime is a reflection of society and society has radically changed since 1992. It's no different than quoting a study done in the '60s or 1800s. Why don't we go pull up some old phrenology studies and apply them to today, I mean, since the nature of crime hasn't changed, so surely the studies are still valid. No. Kellerman is both flawed and outdated.

The point of the above graph is that choosing two sets of data in which there is even a very strong correlation does not mean that there is actually any underlying meaning between the correlation. You have to look at multiple factors before you can come to any conclusion of that ilk. That's the purpose of a multivariate study such as Kellerman's, and is one reason why your assertion that more guns = less crime is flawed. There are several others, including cherrypicking of data (what about other countries/states where there has been an increase in guns/change in crime stats?) and a lack of datapoints, meaning your margins of error are huge (you have about 20, one each year from 1992 to now).
And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless. What variables would you control for to determine how increased gun ownership, increased numbers of guns, and increased access to guns due to more liberal laws in all but one state do not affect crime rates? Especially since they have fallen every year since. I am not missing 20 years of data, I can quickly go get it for you from the FBI UCR, but honestly, I'm tired of doing simple leg work for you as you refuse to use reason and insist on using a single study from a biased source.

No, you're not.
Uh, yes we are. Your little list includes all countries - most of which do not have access to guns like the US has. AND it includes suicides, not just homicides - not the subject of this debate. Your link is irrelevant. My point was in countries with easy access to large numbers of guns and we'll be nearer the bottom of any list you choose to produce on a per capita basis. Again, I'm simply tired of hunting this data down - I have posted it elsewhere (not this thread), so know that it exists somewhere...maybe tomorrow when I'm rested I'll bother.

Despite your protestations, this is tinfoil hat stuff. "They"? Really? And, frankly, it's not what I am suggesting at all.
No, it's not tinfoil hat stuff; more ad hominem. I apologize for my sloppy word choice. 'They', of course, means the gun control lobby in the US - I'm sorry I assumed that was understood. They, the gun control lobby, want to remove all weapons. It is their stated goal. Organizations like the Brady Group, Gun Control Inc, and others have stated, on the record, that they want to confiscate all guns, as have many of our politicians. All guns. All. They, sorry, the gun control lobby, knows they need to do this within the legal system. The way our legal system works is largely based on yours, so you'll hopefully understand it. There must be laws passed that pass judicial scrutiny and cases brought before that successfully uphold the law to establish a legal precedent. Once established, the next "food fight" isn't over whether or not they, this time it's politicians writing laws, CAN ban certain things, the food fight is WHICH things to ban. Once the law has passed, it will be slowly accepted with the passing of time, much like your own gun control laws. The next time there is a shooting and all the assault weapons are already banned, the cry will be to go after the handguns. It is the slippery slope you always hear about. No, it's not tinfoil hat, it's history.

Henra has a good point. Most of our violent crime and gun crime occurs in major metropolitan areas. There was a link to a video several pages back that had statistics that showed controlling for population density radically altered the rates. The video noted that the overwhelming majority of violent crime and gun murders occurred in cities larger than 250,000 - these are rates, not total numbers. Much of this is gangland stuff, drug-related stuff, and it's not surprising. Growing up in Miami and having lived in at least one other major metropolitan area, I can tell you what is common sense; you stay away from certain areas. The same is true in London or Glasgow or Manchester. My point? Big cities create crime havens and many big cities are the ones with the strictest gun control (Chicago, New York, etc), so criminals aren't following the law there. I don't find that surprising, but perhaps you do.

A friend was interviewed the other day. He had a great quote the Americans will appreciate, and maybe a few others as well.

"[Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies. It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon. It’s always looming on the horizon, and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it [Second Amendment] the way they did."
--Kevin Tully, American Patriot

[Airborne Aircrew]

Finest:

So I guess you agree with North Korea's continual development of nuclear weapons.Well... There's a self hack if I ever saw one. You just ejected yourself from the conversation with that question...

You hold up a paranoid dictatorship that is unthreatened in the world yet keeps it's people in line by having them think they are on the brink of invasion by the rest of the planet so that their lack of food and basic necessities is because they must create "defensive" weapons all the while using the threat of starting a nuclear war so they can negotiate "stuff" to keep the rulers happy as a reasonable, self defense doctrine...

You're incredible... In the literal meaning of the word...

As to my family... Since Kellerman is twenty year old rubbish I can assure you that the weapons I hold are far more likely to be used against one who means us harm than any of the three in this household intent harm upon any other.

[finestkind]

You hold up a paranoid dictatorship that is unthreatened in the world yet keeps it's people in line by having them think they are on the brink of invasion by the rest of the planet so that their lack of food and basic necessities is because they must create "defensive" weapons all the while using the threat of starting a nuclear war so they can negotiate "stuff" to keep the rulers happy as a reasonable, self defense doctrine..

AA

Hmm, there is no parallel here with a significant number of a the US gun holding population (non paranoid) believing that their Government is on the brink of becoming a dictatorship. Not in any way stating that you have but a fair number of gun owners here and elsewhere have stated that is the reason they have guns.

I am honestly happy and thankful that you are a person who has their guns safely placed to prevent accidents, but without statistics etc I could bet on it that there is a significant number of people that do not do so.

[HrkDrvr]

Hmm, there is no parallel here with a significant number of a the US gun holding population (non paranoid) believing that their Government is on the brink of becoming a dictatorship. Not in any way stating that you have but a fair number of gun owners here and elsewhere have stated that is the reason they have guns.

No, it is the understanding that by reading more than just the Constitution, by reading the writings and deliberations of our founders, that we understand the reason for the Second Amendment is precisely to protect against government overreach and tyranny. You do not need a dictatorship to have tyranny.

Tyranny takes many forms. The founders knew this. Not all tyrants come to power via a coup, rather, a good many of them came to power via the ballot box. A careful reading of history shows how well-intentioned people have eroded liberty, either deliberately or inadvertently, in an attempt to 'help' or under the pretenses of public safety.

There were many who called GW Bush a tyrant for the Patriot Act. And just today, our FBI director was asked if it was legal for the government to kill a US citizen on US soil and he actually said he would have to check into it. The context of this discussion was the FBI's explanation of the legal aspect of killing an American citizen on foreign soil if he was deemed an imminent threat. The very discussion is unimaginable to most Americans - where is the due process guaranteed to every citizen? And who gets to decide "imminent threat". The Justice Department's position that the FBI was explaining was the due process was effectively practiced based on how they selected their targets. Really? Really? My point is, the concern about tyranny is real.

It's not paranoia, it's preparedness. It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

My friend's quote is very applicable to this discussion:

"[Tyranny is] not a wolf that dies. It’s a wolf that breeds, and it may not always be in your backyard, but it’s always looming on the horizon. It’s always looming on the horizon, and that’s why the Founding Fathers wrote it [Second Amendment] the way they did."
--Kevin Tully, American Patriot

[AR1]

I'm privileged to have some US relatives, and this has led to some interesting discussions.
I don't get the gun thing, I really dont. Sure when it was bandit country, but it's not. - Guns don't kill people they argue. Oh yes they do, They were designed for one purpose, and that's the purpose for which they're used and it's the reason why people have them 'to protect themselves' - If only (they said to me) Concealed permits were in that theater, the folks there would have dealt with him. Oh really? pitch dark, your engrossed in a movie and a shot rings out. Do you A: Hit the deck or B: stand up with the other 40 or so guns in the room and shoot who?

I had a discussion last week, where I asked a lady (after a protracted discussion) - Ok, let me transport you to a land where guns are banned. - Why would you need a gun?
Answer - Because he might have a knife.

That tells you all you need to know. The land of the free is a country haunted by fear - fear of itself. We can talk statistics all we like but it doesn't change that, and until it does, everyday we await the next nutjob who wants his inevitable death on the front pages with his victims.

In the meantime lets go near RAF Lyeneham in Wiltshire (Military aviation link folks...) Calne in Wiltshire to be exact, for the vision of a gun free world...

I understand larger caliber vegetables such as Cabbages are to be banned.

Turnip for the books as drive-by veg hurlers strike in Calne (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald) (http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/towns/calneheadlines/9672111.Turnip_for_the_books_as_drive_by_veg_hurlers_strike_ in_Calne/)

[finestkind]

Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Further support that even the good intentions may well end up causing harm.

However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.

A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.

To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).

To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational

And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.

To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.



There were many who called GW Bush a tyrant for the Patriot Act. And just today, our FBI director was asked if it was legal for the government to kill a US citizen on US soil and he actually said he would have to check into it. The context of this discussion was the FBI's explanation of the legal aspect of killing an American citizen on foreign soil if he was deemed an imminent threat. The very discussion is unimaginable to most Americans - where is the due process guaranteed to every citizen? And who gets to decide "imminent threat". The Justice Department's position that the FBI was explaining was the due process was effectively practiced based on how they selected their targets. Really? Really? My point is, the concern about tyranny is real.


Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down. The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231). If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????

[HrkDrvr]

However this raises a number of points. If you have a Government that is not safe and does not have checks and balance in the system to prevent the perversion of power than you are already a third world country waiting for the coup or the tyranny to occur.
Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny.

A lot of the points made here about liberal gun laws are really based on that's its dangerous and can you not see that it is and the question is why do you do it. If you accept the danger and increased death rates that is your right but I am questioning the rational reason behind accepting this, in particular danger to innocents.
I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.

To justify by saying its in my rights doesn't really justify it (see post 181).
I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.

To justify it by saying I don't trust my Government or the people voted in, which than infers nor the voters, which happens to be you, really appears irrational
Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.

And I must question the rationale behind the belief that if a majority of the population have guns they can stop the rot. Really, again it would not be musket and cannon against musket and cannon or are you guys hiding something like you own little thermo nuclear device.
I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.

To diverge slightly further, it is difficult to believe any non dictatorial Government actually runs a country. Money is the power and given the amount of money that is held by companies and individuals, Governments do as they are told. So perhaps you do have something there with the aspect of threatening the power brokers.
There are theories that are exactly opposite of this. Molyneaux posits that we're all captured in invisible cages of our own making and nobody is free. We are being cultivated by human farms on the plantation of greed. Or some such. Regardless, we've delved into philosophy at this point and for this specific posting, not quite germane.

Well who does decide. Is the police watching an armed person indiscriminately shooting at people going to wait for approval to take this person down.
Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.

The abuse of the legal system negates any logical action (see post 231).
I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment.

If you don't trust the person's in charge from the President to the police and you wish to see tyranny behind every action,, well you don't have a country. You have already achieved tyranny through you own "well-intentioned" actions. If your actions are to be able to say I have a gun and others do and we will stop tyranny by force if necessary begs the questions what makes your right the right right?????

You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.


AR1 - suggest you lay off the drink for a bit, then post. While I find it difficult to follow some of your nonsensical rambling, I will attempt it nonetheless.


If only (they said to me) Concealed permits were in that theater, the folks there would have dealt with him. Oh really? pitch dark, your engrossed in a movie and a shot rings out. Do you A: Hit the deck or B: stand up with the other 40 or so guns in the room and shoot who?
A valid question. However, you don't understand gun culture because you don't live it. You also concede you don't "get the gun thing". So let me explain. When used to stop a crime, it is not always necessary to use your weapon to kill or even shoot anyone. Typically, these types of drug-crazed miscreants cower or quit when faced with deadly force. This is why they choose gun free zones. The Colorado movie shooter had 13 cinemas to choose from - he chose the only one that was a gun-free zone. Chance? Perhaps. As soon as the cops showed up, he gave up - no further shots fired. The Oregon mall shooting a few days after Sandy Hook - the guy offed himself once a CCP holder identified himself and showed his gun - no shots fired. And the list goes on. So, no, 40 people wouldn't have been firing blindly in the dark. The training required to acquire a concealed carry permit varies by state, but all require use of force training.

That tells you all you need to know. The land of the free is a country haunted by fear - fear of itself. We can talk statistics all we like but it doesn't change that, and until it does, everyday we await the next nutjob who wants his inevitable death on the front pages with his victims.
You need to teach PTT statistical analysis. Your lone conversation with a single woman tells you "all you need to know". Now you're using an ad hominem attack on 322 million people. Nicely done. But you're wrong.

I don't have a gun because I'm fearful. I have a gun because I know I live in a world that is not perfect and there are bad guys with guns. I am responsible because I wish to equip myself with the tools to protect my family and myself. It is out of duty, not fear, that I do this. It is for the love of my family that I protect them.

And even if the bad guy didn't have a gun, I'm not going to let him get close enough to my family to use a knife, a club, a brick or any other imaginary weapon in your Utopian land of make believe. I'm not going to count on my cunning or strength, I'm going to count on the great equalizer that is the most superior weapon I can legally obtain.

[PTT]

@ AAAgain, I'll say poppycock. Your treasured study claims, (after reassessments which confirms the author's ability to take a dataset and manipulate it), that I have a 2.7 times better chance of dying from a gun because my house has one or more. But what it does not take into account is the fact that, in an armed household the thing I'm most worried about, (the armed intruder), won't meet a happy end at the end of one of my weapons. So really your study, while it sounds wonderful, doesn't really matter. The simple fact is that if an armed intruder enters Kellerman's perfect house he's golden, if he enters an armed house his likelihood of assuming room temperature is increased infinitely.Because that is not what the study is looking at. It's looking at the risk to [you with gun in your house] vs [you without gun in your house]. If you want something else then find a different study: you don't go to a football match and then start complaining that it's not rugby! What you are doing, though, is assuming your results.
Thus, the educated gun owner has no worry about Kellerman's mental meanderings.And I have no issues with the suitably trained and educated gun owner, as I have said!
@ HrkDrvr
Your ad hominem attacks do not eliminate the fact that there are multiple ways to manipulate data. Kellerman chooses to ignore some data (self defense) and manipulate the rest in manners that support his sponsors. He is not the first, nor will he be the last, to find things that support his sponsors when conducting a study. Telling you that you are misusing or misunderstanding statistics is not an ad hominem. And your accusations are unfounded: you've simply stated them, not supported them.
Again, can you find no other comparable study that supports Kellerman's theory?I linked two earlier. It would really help if you start reading the links I post for you.
Straw man argument. Nobody said that. I said that guns are not a health issue. Death due to guns is a crime or social issue. Not health.Measurement of death by any means is a health issue, and therefore measurement of death by guns is a health issue. Solving issues caused by guns is a social matter, but measuring the effect is not. And, tbh, if main your issue with this is where the data is published then I suggest that you really don't have an issue.
Read again. There were two stats provided for each area, violent crime total (which includes all murder) and gun-related murder and non-negligent homicide (which I'm pretty sure is specific to guns). It is one of the key ways the FBI delineates the data in the Uniform Crime Report, so my source did as well. It's available on the web if you'd like to peruse it.This is part of what you said here (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/504928-dumb-arses-guns-13.html#post7652350):
King Co (Seattle) 357/100,000 violent crimes and 3.1/100,000 murders. Nowhere does that mention guns. I would LOVE to peruse your data, but you've not linked it and I'm not going to go hunting it with the vaguest of detail.
Actually, no. You don't seem to know much about our university system. The overwhelming majority are sponsored by the state and even the private institutions receive many millions in grants from the government. They all tend to be quite liberal/left/socialistic for the most part. So, no, I wouldn't expect any university to really combat another university on this particular issue. In fact, most social issues tend to be generally agreed upon by the universities. Was the Kellerman study done by a university? I didn't look...I thought it was an ER doctor.This does sound rather paranoid, I have to say. And I also disagree. If issues are agreed upon by people who have actually studied them then it doesn't make it a conspiracy ;)
Another straw man argument. The nature of crime does indeed change as does the study of it. The incidences change and the criminals change too. My university degree is in criminology, so I'm well versed in the ever changing nature of crime. Crime is a reflection of society and society has radically changed since 1992. It's no different than quoting a study done in the '60s or 1800s. Why don't we go pull up some old phrenology studies and apply them to today, I mean, since the nature of crime hasn't changed, so surely the studies are still valid. No. Kellerman is both flawed and outdated.With a degree in criminology I'd hope you'd know a little about statistics, then. How has the null hypothesis changed?
I'd also like to know why you think that was a straw man: I wasn't stating an argument for you at all there.
You keep saying Kellerman is flawed, but haven't shown how: every "reason" you've given I've provided a counter to and you've not responded.
And I conceded that correlation is not causation. But strong correlation is correlation nonetheless.So you agree there is a link between the number of pirates and global warming? Or do you think that, perhaps, there is another factor which is not being looked at?
What variables would you control for to determine how increased gun ownership, increased numbers of guns, and increased access to guns due to more liberal laws in all but one state do not affect crime rates?That's a big question, and not one I could even start to answer without effectively beginning a proper study. There are a multitude of social, political and economic factors which have an effect on crime, so all of those would have to be controlled for.
I am not missing 20 years of data, I can quickly go get it for you from the FBI UCR, but honestly, I'm tired of doing simple leg work for you as you refuse to use reason and insist on using a single study from a biased source.I didn't say you were missing 20 years of data, I said you only had 20 data points, one for every year. Perhaps if you were to provide links then I could look at the data myself?
Uh, yes we are. Your little list includes all countries - most of which do not have access to guns like the US has. AND it includes suicides, not just homicides - not the subject of this debate.Incorrect. Column 3 lists homicides only, and the US is 15th on the list when ordered by homicide rate. The US does have the highest gun ownership rate in the world at 88.1 per 100 residents. Looking at OECD (so, relatively wealthy) nations only:
http://mark.reid.name/images/figures/homicide-vs-guns.png - picture removed because it was HUGE.
Source (http://mark.reid.name/iem/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html)
Also, this: The Global Sociology Blog - On the Guns Thing, I would Just Like to Point Out… (http://globalsociology.com/2012/12/15/on-the-guns-thing-i-would-just-like-to-point-out/)
No, it's not tinfoil hat stuff; more ad hominem. I apologize for my sloppy word choice. 'They', of course, means the gun control lobby in the US - I'm sorry I assumed that was understood. They, the gun control lobby, want to remove all weapons. It is their stated goal.Again, it's not ad hominem when you come across like that. Misunderstanding in terminology noted :)

You need to teach PTT statistical analysis.Now who's going with the ad hominem's - glass houses ;)
And I think you perhaps need to check up on the meaning of some of the logical fallacies you're throwing around here: they don't quite tally up with what is being said :ok:

[AR1]

Bollocks. And at this point I have been drinking. In California... The woman I used as an example represents the single viewpoint I've come across in my time over here, family and friends cling on to their arms through fear. Fear that in their lifetime somehow if it's not their homes they"ll be called into action to stop looting at the supermarket come armageddon. Two nights ago I sat in this bar watching nobody react to a man collapse (I did) Yet you'll quite happily justify a society that reacts with a gun. Twisted.

[poina]

I'll give you that to a point. I can buy several semi-auto hunting rifles built by the likes of browning, winchester, remington. All in larger caliber than the ar-15 and knockoffs. In Montana, and most terrain in the mountainous western USA, longer shots are the norm. If you are lucky you may get 3-4 shots at 300 yds before the elk are in the trees. Which is why 7mm, 300 win. magnums are preferred calibers as the .223 don't cut the mustard.

I am NOT for gun control, but the argument of 30 round clips for hunting makes no sense to me when better platforms are available.

Same for auto-loading pistols, my 45 acp only has an 8 round mag, which seems plenty for me.

High capacity weapons have been a trademark of these nuts, if they are taken off the market it will have no effect on my ability to hunt or protect myself.

[Jumping_Jack]

:suspect: Bored with this now....I just wish Thames Valley Police would hurry up with my FAC variation.....:ok:

[finestkind]

HrkDrv Apologise for not being succinct

Straw man. Every democracy is only one election away from tyranny.

Borderline ad hominem? Based on what fact.

I don't follow your first sentence at all. But I see you trot out the red herring of "danger to innocents". The "if it saves one life" mantra is getting tired. Human life is precious, and should be considered as such, but not precious enough to sacrifice the liberty of 325 million for one.

Sorry. Obviously we that are not Americans cannot follow the mindset that justifies the bearing of arms even when children die from accidents but would like to understand this mindset. Much the same as the rational logic behind suicide bombers escapes me but if I had been raised somewhere in the Middle East then I might. However the one thing I am fanatic about is fanatic's. There is no logic or reasoning to be applied with fanatics and from what I have seen it would be very difficult to say that some gun bearing Americans are not fanatics. Please do not take this to infer this is anyone that I have read on this thread. Certainly do not believe I have stated “if it saves one life” mantra.


I believe those who say this really mean to say that you don't understand the American Constitution. As someone else already wrote, rights are not granted to us, they are acknowledged and the government is specifically prohibited from compromising them. It is a concept foreign to most, but ingrained in the American psyche - if you cannot accept that, that's fine, but don't play 'holier than thou' because you don't understand our rights.


Couldn’t agree more but see above. I am trying to understand and do not see any holier than thou attitude.

Borderline straw man & ad hominem - two for one! I never said I didn't trust my government. To borrow a phrase from Reagan, trust but verify. They are elected, but as you concede up front power corrupts and good intentions often end poorly. It is not mistrust of the government, per se, rather, it is a wariness of human nature.

Carry a gun and that wariness goes away?

I've been waiting for this one. This is straw man and red herring all rolled into one. First, if our government won't use nukes on terrorists, rogue nations, or anyone else, what makes you think they'll point them inwards? That's irrational and proves the fallacy of "what will you do against nukes" silliness. Secondly, if it were to get to the insurrection point, or even a catastrophic failure/collapse of the entire system due to financial/energy/terrorism/natural disaster/whatever, an unarmed populace is far easier to control than an armed populace. After hurricane Katrina, they did confiscate guns, so there is recent precedent right here in our own back yard. And the battle of Athens is another incident in our history where it was necessary for the populace to rise up. Had they been unarmed, it wouldn't have turned out as it did. So your straw man and red herring also include a wee bit of inferred ad hominem.


Possible misinterpretation. My point being that guns do not trump tanks, artillery, aircraft missiles etc. So the tongue in cheek question was whether the people advocating guns will prevent tyranny, have something else besides guns to do so.


Straw man. Nobody said that and it's not comparable to the al-awlaki case insofar as when in the midst of a shooting, there are exigent circumstances. Al-alwlaki cruising in his car in Yemen with his family, not so much. And you're trying to compare instruments of state power projection with local law enforcement. There is a deep chasm of difference between the two. The question the FBI director was answering was can the state pick citizens for assassination, not if a cop can stop a felony in progress using the continuum of force up through lethal. Improper comparison.

No you give me too much credit. I am not trying to draw comparisons between state power and law enforcement. Wariness of human nature starts to see shadows everywhere and..... on occasions you will be right.

I have no idea what post 231 has to do with your statement, so cannot comment.

Just the example given by you I feel is pertinent. The use of an “illegal” fire arm to protect oneself with the result the victim becomes the criminal is an abuse/misuse of the justice system.


You seem to assume I'm just headed out the door to start an armed insurrection and that I trust nobody. Trust, but verify. Elect and monitor. Process and review. Nobody has "actioned" the insurrection, well-intentioned or otherwise. I will concede that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist and whose side is right may be subject to interpretation. Best you leave that for the Americans to figure out for the Americans. If it should ever come to pass, and I sincerely hope it does not, history will judge the actors and outcomes. No sense in you trying to prejudge for everyone.


Very happy to leave it to the Americans to do as they will. But being what we are, somewhat educated reasonable thinking people, trying to see the other side by having a discourse. Some logical reason as to why it is so. There are posters who have stated it is my right, so what. To do something just because you can do it is not a reason.

Who’s right is right is as relevant as your acknowledgment of one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. There is no prejudgement just a desire to understand why when so much appears to be with the no vote. An increasing population with a lower socio economic background in an overpopulated urban area statistically shows a higher crime rate (or so I have read). If you are armed you are more likely to a) turn away an attempted mugging/robbery/assault b) defend yourself and others from a shooting. Acknowledged but one of the many questions would be if there were far harsher penalties would this reduce the crime rate and thereby negate the need to arm oneself. But I guess if that is only a minor reason to carry a gun and it is more relevant to do so because of the fear of tryanny, well I'm really doubtfull.

[keesje]

If in the US people would only be allowed to have their gun at clubs or if they are police/militairy, gun related accidents would instantly decimate, even robberies would become much safer.

We have a situation where their are a growing number of guns though 300.000.000, getting ever more powerful and the NRA people successfully make everyone afraid.

Generations are raised with it and make sure their kids have no doubts.

Little Kid at a Shooting Range - YouTube

[Kitbag]

Oh FFS, somebody please be kind and apply a gun to the back of this threads head to put it out of its' misery

[500N]

"even robberies would become much safer."


Keesje

And just how will robberies become safer ?

[barnstormer1968]

This thread may have got a bit too serious and a bit too silly.
Why do folks talk of nutters and checks etc.
As far as I was aware shooting in the USA are most often carried out by one single group in society. They aren't nutters, they don't intend to hurt and they are known to thr gun owner. Americans here should easily identify this group!

I got a bit bored of the thread when banning cars etc was brought up.
Statistically the highest percentage of death per activity is sleeping. Do these same folks propose banning sleep?
I suppose aircrew carry weapons, drive cars and also sleep, so at least the thread could be relevant.:E

[Pontius Navigator]

Absolutely agree with "It is the realization that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

"All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

CP Snow, Corridors of Power and I am losing the will to live. Obviously all this shooting is making them deaf and blind to how b o r I n g this thread has become.

[keesje]

The robber knows nobody has a gun, takes the money and leaves.

He would bring bigger guns and be nervous/ violent if the are probably guns around.

(And no, carrying a gun doesn't make the country safer Robberies statistics - countries compared worldwide - NationMaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob-crime-robberies))