Is the Left Losing the Gun Control Debate?

[lilpixieofterror]

You clearly have never travelled very widely.

Spain kind of reminded me a little bit of Southern California while England kind of reminded me a bit of the North East coast of the US. Considering that those countries did once control those areas of the US; I guess that isn't too surprising to see a bit of that going on, but anybody who seriously thinks there's little to no differences between the US and European countries obviously hasn't traveled to Europe.

[Rational Gaze]

Here is an interesting article, by the Guardian too, no less:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/data...crime-us-state

[Truthseeker]

I goofed slightly with the last graph. There was a typo in the data for one of the data points, so the graph is off slightly. New graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]10459[/ATTACH]

An example of a graph showing correlation between data for one variable, call it X, and that for another variable Y -- is found in the Wikipedia entry, see the first graphic there, which shows a variation of the degree of correlation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...and_dependence
To make the above abstract treatment more relevant here, for one country, the USA, a plotted graphic point would be x = 88.8 guns per 100 and y = 4.7 homicides per 100k. Make one plotted point for each country. The overall correlation would be not close to 1 (perfect correlation) as far as I can tell from the data.

[Sam]

An example of a graph showing correlation between data for one variable, call it X, and that for another variable Y -- is found in the Wikipedia entry, see the first graphic there, which shows a variation of the degree of correlation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correl...and_dependence
To make the above abstract treatment more relevant here, for one country, the USA, a plotted graphic point would be x = 88.8 guns per 100 and y = 4.7 homicides per 100k. Make one plotted point for each country. The overall correlation would be not close to 1 (perfect correlation) as far as I can tell from the data.

Going to the studies would be the best approach:



And even when looking across individual states in the USA, the correlation appears to hold:

Source: Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S. Monuteaux, Michael C. et al. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , 207 - 214

Introduction


Although some view the ownership of firearms as a deterrent to crime, the relationship between population-level firearm ownership rates and violent criminal perpetration is unclear. The purpose of this study is to test the association between state-level firearm ownership and violent crime.


Methods


State-level rates of household firearm ownership and annual rates of criminal acts from 2001, 2002, and 2004 were analyzed in 2014. Firearm ownership rates were taken from a national survey and crime data were taken from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports. Rates of criminal behavior were estimated as a function of household gun ownership using negative binomial regression models, controlling for several demographic factors.


Results


Higher levels of firearm ownership were associated with higher levels of firearm assault and firearm robbery. There was also a significant association between firearm ownership and firearm homicide, as well as overall homicide.


Conclusions


The findings do not support the hypothesis that higher population firearm ownership rates reduce firearm-associated criminal perpetration. On the contrary, evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm. Public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

I goofed slightly with the last graph. There was a typo in the data for one of the data points, so the graph is off slightly. New graph:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]10459[/ATTACH]

The outliers are obviously the US, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. I personally think the inclusion of the latter three in the dataset is questionable - they are ex-USSR countries who aren't really yet directly comparable to the West (see Sam's cross-posted comments above). When such borderline countries are excluded from the dataset, the US looks really bad compared to the others.

So what that data basically says is that as far as intentional gun homicides go, the US is as bad as the ex-USSR countries, and about 5 times worse than the rest of the Western world. That's pretty bad.

Clearly it is possible to have a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun deaths: Rate of gun ownership is definitely not the sole factor in gun homicides. A variety of factors are in play, many of which have been identified in various studies that did international comparisons. Unfortunately there are a significant block of people in the US who insist on changing nothing... not a single one of the various internationally identified factors in gun violence will they allow to be changed or policies to address them implemented in the US.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that your graph covers only one of three major negative results of firearms. You focus solely on intentional homicides. But accidental gun deaths and gun suicides are both equally major problems.

When a young child picks up a gun in the house and shoots his brother by mistake, that is an entirely preventable tragedy, which simply doesn't occur in most developed nations, but is depressingly frequent in the US. A person can't simultaneously have a gun out and ready to defend their family with, and also have that gun secured away from young children. The solution is to realize that anyone who thinks having a gun would actually defend their family is just a moron who has no connection with reality or statistics or facts, and that it's just a plain terrible terrible terrible idea to have an unsecured gun in the house. People attacking intruders with weapons are vastly more likely to have those weapons turned upon them by the intruders than any other outcome. Equally, a person is far more likely to use a gun they own to kill themselves with than they are to ever use it to defend themselves with. The idea of a gun for "self-defense" is just a ridiculous lie cooked up by gun-manufacturers in order to sell guns to the gullible (which is why most Western countries don't consider 'self-defense' a legal reason to be buying a gun).

And as for the notion of defending yourselves against the government with guns, that might have made sense in the 18th century when everyone had muskets, but now the government has drones, fighter jets, battleships and nuclear weapons, so good luck with stopping that with your guns. It wouldn't be enough to stop an FBI raid of your house, never mind the military. Furthermore, the situation that the US founding fathers were afraid of - government oppression of the people via the army - has proved a completely false fear. In the ~240 years since, no Western country's army has shown any sign of oppressing the people. So the 2nd amendment interpreted as a citizen block of a government military takeover is a moronic solution that would never work to a problem that has never existed. But because of that people take the attitude that we must stand by and implement none of the proven solutions to prevent the deaths of school kids in mass shootings, and no law is allowed to be put in place to stop it. It's sickening.

[Truthseeker]

The outliers are obviously the US, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. I personally think the inclusion of the latter three in the dataset is questionable - they are ex-USSR countries who aren't really yet directly comparable to the West (see Sam's cross-posted comments above). When such borderline countries are excluded from the dataset, the US looks really bad compared to the others.

You need to do more argument. For one thing, are these countries really as questionable as you think?

Clearly it is possible to have a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of gun deaths: Rate of gun ownership is definitely not the sole factor in gun homicides. A variety of factors are in play, many of which have been identified in various studies that did international comparisons.

Did you indeed support such assertions by citation of the scientific literature? I don't recall.

terrible terrible terrible idea to have an unsecured gun in the house.

Rant so much that froth circles your mouth.

People attacking intruders with weapons are vastly more likely to have those weapons turned upon them by the intruders than any other outcome.

Again, citations of the scientific literature?

And as for the notion of defending yourselves against the government with guns, that might have made sense in the 18th century when everyone had muskets, but now the government has drones, fighter jets, battleships and nuclear weapons, so good luck with stopping that with your guns. It wouldn't be enough to stop an FBI raid of your house, never mind the military. Furthermore, the situation that the US founding fathers were afraid of - government oppression of the people via the army - has proved a completely false fear. In the ~240 years since, no Western country's army has shown any sign of oppressing the people. So the 2nd amendment interpreted as a citizen block of a government military takeover is a moronic solution that would never work to a problem that has never existed. But because of that people take the attitude that we must stand by and implement none of the proven solutions to prevent the deaths of school kids in mass shootings, and no law is allowed to be put in place to stop it. It is sickening.

Any government needs to have some support from the people. If the practically-entire people turns against the government, probably it will fall ere long.

[Adam]

The outliers are obviously the US, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. I personally think the inclusion of the latter three in the dataset is questionable - they are ex-USSR countries who aren't really yet directly comparable to the West (see Sam's cross-posted comments above). When such borderline countries are excluded from the dataset, the US looks really bad compared to the others.
So what that data basically says is that as far as intentional gun homicides go, the US is as bad as the ex-USSR countries, and about 5 times worse than the rest of the

Truthseeker in the following Post #66 (right after your #65 as above) denies your separation of post-Soviet countries as legitimate, but he is wrong--see my Post #60 that explained exactly your point and went on to demonstrate that removing the Baltic countries from the graph leaves a clear message that two types of countries are low-homicide whether gun ownership is high or low. One is homogenous countries in Europe and the other is homogenous countries in Asia.
So the irony is clear: "Truthseeker" belies his name. But my Post #60 refutes you as thoroughly. There are no truthseekers anywhere, certainly not here, but I have not found them ANYWHERE.

[Starlight]

Here are more useful graphs that are clearer than RG's attempt at plotting his own. They show that gun deaths are correlated with gun ownership in the developed world:


and between different American states:


Furthermore, the data shows a clear correlation between states with stronger gun control laws, and less gun deaths:
(On this chart the states are ranked from 0 to 49 by number of gun deaths and strength of gun control laws. A color coding system is also used to group states with similar levels of gun control together)


And, for Adam, here is an example of a scientific study about what actually happens when people try to use guns to defend themselves:

individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession.

[lilpixieofterror]

Notice how Dimbulb continues to ignore the answers he has already been given and repeats his same nonsense because facts do not matter to him. For example, he seems to not understand that California, New York, and Hawaii have few guns which = fewer chances for people to end up getting hurt or killed by guns. It's very simple logic because less of something = less of a chance of getting injured by that said object. I already gave an example to support my claim by pointing out that California and Texas have the highest amount of car deaths, in the US (around 20% of all car accident deaths occurred in these two states). It sounds bad until you consider that California and Texas also have the largest population and the most miles driven, of any state. More driving and more cars on the road naturally leads to more deaths involving cars and the same is true for guns. What he needs to prove is that the laws are the cause for the lower numbers of deaths in the states with 'higher graded gun laws' and not simply due to less total chances of encountering a gun. I've already explained this once, so ignoring it will not make it go away. Do answer or just keep ignoring it and keep showing that analysis isn't part of your agenda, but gun grabbing is.

[Sam]

Notice how Dimbulb continues to ignore the answers he has already been given and repeats his same nonsense because facts do not matter to him. For example, he seems to not understand that California, New York, and Hawaii have few guns which = fewer chances for people to end up getting hurt or killed by guns. It's very simple logic because less of something = less of a chance of getting injured by that said object. I already gave an example to support my claim by pointing out that California and Texas have the highest amount of car deaths, in the US (around 20% of all car accident deaths occurred in these two states). It sounds bad until you consider that California and Texas also have the largest population and the most miles driven, of any state. More driving and more cars on the road naturally leads to more deaths involving cars and the same is true for guns. What he needs to prove is that the laws are the cause for the lower numbers of deaths in the states with 'higher graded gun laws' and not simply due to less total chances of encountering a gun. I've already explained this once, so ignoring it will not make it go away. Do answer or just keep ignoring it and keep showing that analysis isn't part of your agenda, but gun grabbing is.

Welcome to the club; both Starlight and I have been arguing that gun ownership and the availability of guns correlate strongly with certain violent crimes, notably firearm-related homicide and total homicide. Rational Gaze & Rogue have led the charge in disputing this, supported by most of the others who've been posting across these gun threads. You're arguing the same thing we've been in this post, somehow unaware of that fact.

[lilpixieofterror]

Welcome to the club; both Starlight and I have been arguing that gun ownership and the availability of guns correlate strongly with certain violent crimes, notably firearm-related homicide and total homicide. Rational Gaze & Rogue have led the charge in disputing this, supported by most of the others who've been posting across these gun threads. You're arguing the same thing we've been in this post, somehow unaware of that fact.

You're very slow, huh Sam? Let me help you out here:

Do guns have a danger attached to them? Of course they do.
Would an increase in total guns and their usage cause an increase in injuries and deaths resulting in guns? Of course.

See few people would deny that an increase in something designed to put holes in animals isn't going to naturally lead to have an increase in deaths related to them just as driving more or having more cars is going to result in an increase in car accidents and deaths related to driving. Notice something about the states that have the higher cases of deaths related to guns, notice something about them? Notice how they are states that tend to be filled with wilderness areas and hunting is far more popular? Could those activities, where people are using guns more, naturally lead to more cases where injuries and deaths result? Can you actually show where Rogue or RG have denied that an increase in the amounts of guns or an increase in the amount of gun usage = no increase in the amount of injuries or death resulting in their usages?The states cited as having lower rates of gun related deaths are the states that have lower numbers of gun ownership and lower usage of guns so that naturally leads to a lower amount of gun related deaths just as California having a lot of cars, a lot of people, and a lot of driving naturally leads to 10% of all car fatalities, in the US, happening in California. If we follow your logic, California has a driver problem when in reality, California simply has more cars on the road and more cars going more distances with naturally leads to more cases of car related deaths. Now, go ahead and show where RG or rogue denied this or you could keep trying to change up the argument (IE trying to argue the laws are the reasons for the lower amounts of death, when it appears that the total amount of guns and usage is the reasons the states have differences in gun related deaths). Nice try Sam, but you're going to have to work harder to pit your ideological opponents against each other.

[Rational Gaze]

The outliers are obviously the US, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. I personally think the inclusion of the latter three in the dataset is questionable - they are ex-USSR countries who aren't really yet directly comparable to the West (see Sam's cross-posted comments above).

They are listed as IMF advanced economies, the arbitrary grouping of Sam's personal choice.

I also pointed out how Serbia, which is listed as a developing nation by the IMF, has the second highest gun ownership in the world behind the US at 69.7 guns per 100 citizens, but a murder rate of 1.9 intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens.

[Sam]

You're very slow, huh Sam? Let me help you out here:

Do guns have a danger attached to them? Of course they do.
Would an increase in total guns and their usage cause an increase in injuries and deaths resulting in guns? Of course.

See few people would deny that an increase in something designed to put holes in animals isn't going to naturally lead to have an increase in deaths related to them just as driving more or having more cars is going to result in an increase in car accidents and deaths related to driving. Notice something about the states that have the higher cases of deaths related to guns, notice something about them? Notice how they are states that tend to be filled with wilderness areas and hunting is far more popular? Could those activities, where people are using guns more, naturally lead to more cases where injuries and deaths result? Can you actually show where Rogue or RG have denied that an increase in the amounts of guns or an increase in the amount of gun usage = no increase in the amount of injuries or death resulting in their usages?The states cited as having lower rates of gun related deaths are the states that have lower numbers of gun ownership and lower usage of guns so that naturally leads to a lower amount of gun related deaths just as California having a lot of cars, a lot of people, and a lot of driving naturally leads to 10% of all car fatalities, in the US, happening in California. If we follow your logic, California has a driver problem when in reality, California simply has more cars on the road and more cars going more distances with naturally leads to more cases of car related deaths. Now, go ahead and show where RG or rogue denied this or you could keep trying to change up the argument (IE trying to argue the laws are the reasons for the lower amounts of death, when it appears that the total amount of guns and usage is the reasons the states have differences in gun related deaths). Nice try Sam, but you're going to have to work harder to pit your ideological opponents against each other.

Rational Gaze argued that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicides; that if people don't have guns, they'll just kill (as many) people another way. He also argues that looser gun regulation, allowing more citizens to own guns, will reduce firearm-related deaths in the final paragraph. You were an active participant in the thread when he was pitching that argument so you should know where to find it.

Rogue has been more direct in his dismissal of our shared claim, starting here and going back and forth with Starlight for a bit; he was arguing that exceptions (i.e., Chicago, Indiana) disproved the correlation (knowing that's not how correlations work).

Fact is, you actually are arguing against claims that both Rational Gaze and Rogue have made but you understand that it weakens your ideological unity to openly disagree on this point and so, consciously or otherwise, you erase the very notable gap between what you're arguing and what they've been arguing pretty clearly for quite some time now.

Oh, and RG appears to be for the kind of mental health screening that you lit into earlier. You'll have to discuss that with him, too.

[Rational Gaze]

They show that gun deaths are correlated with gun ownership in the developed world:


and between different American states:

Furthermore, the data between states with stronger gun control laws, and less gun deaths:

Intentional homicides per 100,000 citizens (2013)
US Total: 4.5

Puerto Rico: 24.4
District of Columbia: 15.9
Louisiana: 10.8
Alabama: 7.2
Mississippi: 6.5
Maryland: 6.4
Michigan: 6.4
South Carolina: 6.2
Missouri: 6.1
New Mexico: 6.0
Nevada: 5.8
Georgia: 5.6
Arkansas: 5.4
Arizona: 5.4
Illinois: 5.4
Indiana: 5.4
Oklahoma: 5.1
Florida: 5.0
Tennessee: 5.0
North Carolina: 4.8
Pennsylvania: 4.7
Alaska: 4.6
California: 4.6
New Jersey: 4.5
Texas: 4.3
Delaware: 4.2
Ohio: 3.9
Kansas: 3.9
Virginia: 3.8
Kentucky: 3.8
Colorado: 3.4
New York: 3.3
West Virginia: 3.3
Nebraska: 3.1
Rhode Island: 2.9
Wyoming: 2.9
Wisconsin: 2.8
Connecticut: 2.4
South Dakota: 2.4
Washington: 2.3
North Dakota: 2.2
Montana: 2.2
Minnesota: 2.1
Massachusetts: 2.0
Oregon: 2.0
Maine: 1.8
New Hampshire: 1.7
Idaho: 1.7
Utah: 1.7
Vermont: 1.6
Hawaii: 1.5
Iowa: 1.4

Guns laws by state (including US territories):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state

[Roy]

Do guns have a danger attached to them? Of course they do.
Would an increase in total guns and their usage cause an increase in injuries and deaths resulting in guns? Of course.

Then a decrease in total guns and their usage would cause a decrease in injuries and deaths. Sounds like a good idea.

See few people would deny that an increase in something designed to put holes in animals...

Hey sweety, you've forgotten about the things designed to put holes in people