Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[2aguy]

More Guns = More Gun crime is valid....showing that that isn't true....

I haven't checked gun crime specifically. But it appears that there is a slight upward correlation between violent crime and gun ownership rates.

That is, of course, if you exclude the time variable. I don't think that's unreasonable as we have both agreed that various circumstances have changed these numbers over time, including police force numbers and techniques.

No...sorry......over time...as more people own and carry guns, it is undeniable that the gun murder rate went down, not up. The gun crime number went down, not up.........26 years......the exact opposite of what was predicted.

As we already agreed, there are external reasons why these numbers have changed over time. As we have already agreed, police likely have a big part in why the murder rate went down in these 26 years.

You keep repeating this same talking point, and it's not working. How many gun registration laws have gone into effect in the last 26 years? I can just as easily argue that crime has gone down in these 26 years due to the gun laws that were passed.

Gun registration does nothing to reduce crime or mass shootings.

Again.....the anti-gun argument does not include...."except police..."

The entire argument of the anti-gun side, your side....is that if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder.

You can try to ignore that argument, but it is the core argument of your side....

And the last 26 years in this country, when millions upon millions more guns have entered society and more and more people own and carry them in public.....the gun murder rate did not go up...it went down 49%....the gun crime rate did not go up, it went down 75%....

You can't explain that.......

In science, if you test a theory and the exact opposite from the expected result happens, that means your theory is wrong.....

The More Guns, More Gun crime argument failed.....

 

[2aguy]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

So......accidental gun deaths.....keeping in mind a population of close to 320 million people, close to 600 million guns in private hands, and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense....and you think this means anything?

Accidental gun death by year.......according to the CDC....really?

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Not really.

It's a relatively small sample size and the correlation is pretty much negligible anyway. It is, however, positive. Just slightly though. What do you make of the other numbers?

Again....for accidental gun deaths...they went down as more people own and carry guns.....and even then, 483 deaths out of a population of 320 million people, with over 600 million guns and over 17.25 million people carrying those guns in public places shows the other point the anti-gunners make is also not true....that more guns will equal more accidental gun death.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

For example.....

More Guns Mean More Violent Crime--or Less? A Researcher Aims at Scientific American

But Moyer ignores 24 peer-reviewed publications just showing that crime in the U.S. drops after people are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

She references a recent unpublished paper by John Donohue, Abhay Aneja and Kyle Weber, but, unlike other studies, they don’t measure the number of permits issued, account for any other gun-control laws or deal with well-known statistical errors (such as truncation problems from a lot of zero values in the crime rates). The study also relies almost exclusively on trends in Hawaii to predict violent crime rates in Idaho, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska and Utah.
-----

Take one example of Moyer’s sloppiness or bias in her article. Moyer has a long discussion of Arthur Kellermann’s work on the risks of guns in the home, and notes that Kellermann studied “444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home.” But Moyer fails to note that, in fact, in only eight of these 444 homicide cases was the murder weapon a gun that had been kept in the home (The New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 1994, p. 368). If Moyer had even read the 1998 edition of More Guns, Less Crime, she would have learned this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one has a valid reason to tell an organization poised to do research what its findings can be.

No one has.

I didn't buy anything--you are ignoring a blatant piece of bullshit passed by the NRA.

I'm sorry the truth isn't what you want it to be.
Perhaps if you thought for yourself a little more often you'd not have this problem.

I'm right. You're wrong. And the Dickey Amendment is atrocious and should have been repealed years ago.

I expect you to lie to me, but lying to yourself in indicative of illness.
Seek help.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

Here.....

You Know Less Than You Think About Guns

Do Gun Laws Stop Gun Crimes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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











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

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

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

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

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


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

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

------

Left-leaning media outlets, from Mother Jones to National Journal, get around this absence of correlation by reporting numbers on “gun deaths” rather than gun homicides or homicides in general.

More than 60 percent of gun deaths nationally are suicides, and places with higher gun ownership typically see a higher percentage of their suicides committed with a gun.

Focusing on the number of gun deaths practically guarantees a finding that guns and violence go together. While it may be true that public policy should also seek to reduce suicide, it is homicide — often a dramatic mass killing — that usually prompts the media and politicians to call for gun control, and it is homicide that most influences people as they consider supporting measures to take away their fellow citizens’ access to guns.


There are large gaps among the states when it comes to homicide, with rates ranging all the way from about two to twelve per 100,000 in 2013, the most recent year of data available from the CDC. These disparities show that it’s not just guns that cause the United States to have, on average, a higher rate of homicide than other developed countries do. Not only is there no correlation between gun ownership and overall homicide within a state, but there is a strong correlation between gun homicide and non-gun homicide — suggesting that they spring from similar causes, and that some states are simply more violent than others. A closer look at demographic and geographic patterns provides some clues as to why this is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

Given the rates of gun in states w/o gun registration - that is, most of them - is just a guess, and could be off by wide, wide margins, how much confidence do you put in these numbers?

 

[2aguy]

good thing a purpose is not necessary for a right.

You don't have a right to own an AR-15. The USSC said so.

Do the words in common use mean anything to you?

Don't run around claiming the Second Amendment means no regulation.

U.S.v Miller 1939
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Shall Not be infringed

Hitler heavily regulated guns how did that work out for the Jew?

Do you trust a trump administration while you want to disarm people from the best weapon to fight against his so called tyranny?

Wrong.

The Miller Court said nothing about what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use,’ and there’s nothing in Miller prohibiting the regulation of AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines.

And you're also wrong about Hitler:

“…the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”

The Hitler gun control lie

Again with the lie about what hitler did.....

That very article which you quote states....

The law did prohibit Jews and other persecuted classes from owning guns, but this should not be an indictment of gun control in general.

Hitler banned and confiscated guns from the people he planned on murdering......
that article is a lie.......

 

[2aguy]

good thing a purpose is not necessary for a right.

You don't have a right to own an AR-15. The USSC said so.

Do the words in common use mean anything to you?

Don't run around claiming the Second Amendment means no regulation.

U.S.v Miller 1939
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Shall Not be infringed

Hitler heavily regulated guns how did that work out for the Jew?

Do you trust a trump administration while you want to disarm people from the best weapon to fight against his so called tyranny?

Wrong.

The Miller Court said nothing about what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use,’ and there’s nothing in Miller prohibiting the regulation of AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines.

And you're also wrong about Hitler:

“…the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn't make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.”

The Hitler gun control lie

You misquote Miller and ignore Heller.....you are vile...

Miller states that military weapons are protected........

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Then Heller states that....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Then Scalia, who wrote the Heller opinion goes even further in Friedman v Highland Park....stating that semi automatic rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment and mentions the AR-15 rifle by name...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Miller Court said nothing about what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use,’ and there’s nothing in Miller prohibiting the regulation of AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines.

Except, of course, AR15s, et al, are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; as such, they, prima facie, constitute "bearable arms", the right to own and use all of which are protected by the 2nd- especially from a ban on said ownership and use, which violate the Constitution at any level of scrutiny.

Its OK - we expected you to lie.

 

[2aguy]

The Miller Court said nothing about what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use,’ and there’s nothing in Miller prohibiting the regulation of AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines.

Except, of course, AR15s, et al, are in common use for traditionally lawful purposes; as such, they, prima facie, constitute "bearable arms", the right to own and use all of which are protected by the 2nd- especially from a ban on said ownership and use, which violate the Constitution at any level of scrutiny.

Its OK - we expected you to lie.

Clayton is such a scumbag.......... he lies by omission, then has the gaul to call us the liars.

 

[XponentialChaos]

The entire argument of the anti-gun side, your side....is that if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder.

Look at this quote of yours right here.

I didn't make this argument. I don't know who did and I don't care who did. It doesn't matter what you think "my side" has stated. You're arguing against a position that I'm not making. That's called a strawman.

You and I already agreed on at least one reason why the gun murder rate went down in the last 26 years, and it's because of the police.

 

[2aguy]

The entire argument of the anti-gun side, your side....is that if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder.

Look at this quote of yours right here.

I didn't make this argument. I don't know who did and I don't care who did. It doesn't matter what you think "my side" has stated. You're arguing against a position that I'm not making. That's called a strawman.

You and I already agreed on at least one reason why the gun murder rate went down in the last 26 years, and it's because of the police.

Yes.....but it did not increase when more guns were put into the picture.....

 

[XponentialChaos]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

C'mon man, let's be intellectually honest here.

I specifically stated that "gun death rate" includes suicides. You don't like the statistic, which is understandable, because it uses suicide. But there's nothing wrong with the numbers themselves. So don't tell me that the numbers "don't add up" or that I'm "way off" on the calculations I ran just because you don't agree with the statistic.

Fair?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

Given the rates of gun in states w/o gun registration - that is, most of them - is just a guess, and could be off by wide, wide margins, how much confidence do you put in these numbers?

Sorry bud. If I thought you were worth the time, I would consider continuing this with you.

I get it. You like guns. Now run along and play while the adults talk numbers.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

C'mon man, let's be intellectually honest here.

I specifically stated that "gun death rate" includes suicides. You don't like the statistic, which is understandable, because it uses suicide. But there's nothing wrong with the numbers themselves. So don't tell me that the numbers "don't add up" or that I'm "way off" on the calculations I ran just because you don't agree with the statistic.

Fair?

Yes...it is wrong....you are using suicides to increase the number.....suicide has nothing to do with gun murder...the true measure....you don't like that measure because gun murder went down 49% as more people bought and carried guns....

 

[XponentialChaos]

The entire argument of the anti-gun side, your side....is that if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder.

Look at this quote of yours right here.

I didn't make this argument. I don't know who did and I don't care who did. It doesn't matter what you think "my side" has stated. You're arguing against a position that I'm not making. That's called a strawman.

You and I already agreed on at least one reason why the gun murder rate went down in the last 26 years, and it's because of the police.

Yes.....but it did not increase when more guns were put into the picture.....

That's correct. And you and I both agree that external reasons likely contributed to that. For one, the police.

I feel like I've said this a few times now. If I haven't, let me make myself perfectly clear.

I don't claim the following to be accurate. In fact, I think the following statement is dead wrong:

"if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder."

Cool?

 

[2aguy]

Granted it's only a slight positive correlation, but its still positive.

Given the rates of gun in states w/o gun registration - that is, most of them - is just a guess, and could be off by wide, wide margins, how much confidence do you put in these numbers?

Sorry bud. If I thought you were worth the time, I would consider continuing this with you.

I get it. You like guns. Now run along and play while the adults talk numbers.

See...... now that just shows you are not honest....M14 simply called out your method and your refusal to explain why gun crime went down over the last 26 years.......you dismiss this fact as unnecessary to your numbers...and that is not true.

 

[2aguy]

The entire argument of the anti-gun side, your side....is that if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder.

Look at this quote of yours right here.

I didn't make this argument. I don't know who did and I don't care who did. It doesn't matter what you think "my side" has stated. You're arguing against a position that I'm not making. That's called a strawman.

You and I already agreed on at least one reason why the gun murder rate went down in the last 26 years, and it's because of the police.

Yes.....but it did not increase when more guns were put into the picture.....

That's correct. And you and I both agree that external reasons likely contributed to that. For one, the police.

I feel like I've said this a few times now. If I haven't, let me make myself perfectly clear.

I don't claim the following to be accurate. In fact, I think it's dead wrong.

"if more guns are put into any society, regardless of police, cultural factors, societal factors, economic factors.....there will be more gun crime and more gun murder."

Cool?

Sure.....but then don't mix suicide into gun murder numbers and say there are more gun deaths in states with more guns....that isn't honest......the only measure is gun murder, and gun crime....the illegal use of guns to commit crimes

 

[XponentialChaos]

2aguy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ownership rate vs Violent Crime Rate

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


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

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

C'mon man, let's be intellectually honest here.

I specifically stated that "gun death rate" includes suicides. You don't like the statistic, which is understandable, because it uses suicide. But there's nothing wrong with the numbers themselves. So don't tell me that the numbers "don't add up" or that I'm "way off" on the calculations I ran just because you don't agree with the statistic.

Fair?

Yes...it is wrong....you are using suicides to increase the number.....suicide has nothing to do with gun murder...the true measure....you don't like that measure because gun murder went down 49% as more people bought and carried guns....

I already explained this. The math is correct. You just disagree with the statistic itself. You don't think it's relevant to include suicides, which is perfectly fair.

 

[2aguy]

You are way off......

320 million people..... 600 million guns in private hands, likely more.....over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense......how many died in gun accidents..according to the CDC...?

486 in 2017......

Yeah, your numbers don't add up....


https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2017...486
2016 495
2015...489

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

Everyone has their own opinion, but we should at least be able to agree on numbers.

How do my numbers not "add up"? How am I "way off"? Please be specific.

You are adding suicide to gun murder.....that is incorrect. You are not computing the numbers with the methods used by actual researchers who take into account other factors, remove other factors and base their numbers on actual methods for calculating these numbers....

C'mon man, let's be intellectually honest here.

I specifically stated that "gun death rate" includes suicides. You don't like the statistic, which is understandable, because it uses suicide. But there's nothing wrong with the numbers themselves. So don't tell me that the numbers "don't add up" or that I'm "way off" on the calculations I ran just because you don't agree with the statistic.

Fair?

Yes...it is wrong....you are using suicides to increase the number.....suicide has nothing to do with gun murder...the true measure....you don't like that measure because gun murder went down 49% as more people bought and carried guns....

I already explained this. The math is correct. You just disagree with the statistic itself. You don't think it's relevant to include suicides, which is perfectly fair.

No, the math isn't correct when you need to throw in suicide. Suicide is different from gun murder and crime...... stating "gun deaths" and mixing the numbers implies that those deaths are a result of criminal action....it is misleading and wrong.