Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[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 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

How is that not honest?

There are more gun deaths in states with more guns. That's just a fact. Additionally, it's also a fact that many of those gun deaths are due to suicide.

There's nothing factually dishonest about those statements.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

 

[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

How is that not honest?

There are more gun deaths in states with more guns. That's just a fact. Additionally, it's also a fact that many of those gun deaths are due to suicide.

There's nothing factually dishonest about those statements.

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest since any rational person will see that a lack of guns will not impact the suicide rate. And I pointed out articles that show that taking out gun suicide changes everything....

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And here...

"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."

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating exactly what the facts are.

If I wanted to give you number regarding gun crime, then I would look up those numbers specifically.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said.

 

[2aguy]

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating exactly what the facts are.

If I wanted to give you number regarding gun crime, then I would look up those numbers specifically.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said.

You mean except for implying "gun deaths" are gun murder......by the omission of suicide ........ take out suicide and as the article showed.....the numbers reverse.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating exactly what the facts are.

If I wanted to give you number regarding gun crime, then I would look up those numbers specifically.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said.

Then this.....

Haskins: Strict gun control will never work in America

For instance, many of the states with the lowest crime rates, including homicide rates, also have some of the fewest limits on gun ownership. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun-control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card “F” grades (for having lax gun laws) to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. If having fewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun-control laws?

The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are only six states in which 50 percent of the households own firearms: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates. Two of the states, Idaho and Wyoming, ranked in the top six.

Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates.

Gun-control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws.

-------



It’s also important to note that relative to other problems in our society of 320 million people, gun-related crime caused by Americans who legally own a firearm involved in the crime is virtually nonexistent.

Of the 33,000 gun-related deaths that occur each year, two-thirds are suicides, and the majority of the remaining 11,000 deaths are gang-related and involve guns that were purchased illegally.

By contrast, 88,000 people die every year from alcohol-linked causes. That means if you exclude suicides, alcohol is 650 percent deadlier than guns (including gang-related crime), and virtually no one is calling for another Prohibition, which, it’s worth pointing out, was a complete disaster.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating exactly what the facts are.

If I wanted to give you number regarding gun crime, then I would look up those numbers specifically.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said.

You mean except for implying "gun deaths" are gun murder......by the omission of suicide ........ take out suicide and as the article showed.....the numbers reverse.

I didn't intend to imply that "gun deaths" are "gun murder". Very different measurements.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes...there is.... by stating gun deaths you imply gun crime..... that is dishonest

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating exactly what the facts are.

If I wanted to give you number regarding gun crime, then I would look up those numbers specifically.

There is absolutely nothing dishonest about what I said.

Then this.....

Haskins: Strict gun control will never work in America

For instance, many of the states with the lowest crime rates, including homicide rates, also have some of the fewest limits on gun ownership. In fact, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports enhancing gun-control laws, gave in its recent gun-control report card “F” grades (for having lax gun laws) to five of the six states that have the lowest homicide rates. If having fewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun-control laws?

The data also show there is no connection to higher gun ownership rates and greater amounts of crime. There are only six states in which 50 percent of the households own firearms: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of firearms, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true here as well. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates. Two of the states, Idaho and Wyoming, ranked in the top six.

Further, many cities with very low legal gun ownership rates and stringent gun-control laws, such as Chicago, have extremely high gun-related murder rates.

Gun-control laws also don’t prevent mass shootings. An analysis conducted by statistician Leah Libresco shows Australia and Britain have not experienced fewer mass shootings or gun-related crimes since enacting their very strict gun-control laws.

-------



It’s also important to note that relative to other problems in our society of 320 million people, gun-related crime caused by Americans who legally own a firearm involved in the crime is virtually nonexistent.

Of the 33,000 gun-related deaths that occur each year, two-thirds are suicides, and the majority of the remaining 11,000 deaths are gang-related and involve guns that were purchased illegally.

By contrast, 88,000 people die every year from alcohol-linked causes. That means if you exclude suicides, alcohol is 650 percent deadlier than guns (including gang-related crime), and virtually no one is calling for another Prohibition, which, it’s worth pointing out, was a complete disaster.

Not related to what I said.

 

[2aguy]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

And here is an example...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Ah. You cant man up and face the fact your computations are almost certainly invalid because of the uncertain validity of the information you used.
I accept your concession.

 

[XponentialChaos]

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

And here is an example...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[XponentialChaos]

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

Ah. You cant man up and face the fact your computations are almost certainly invalid because of the uncertain validity of the information you used.
I accept your concession.

K.

 

[2aguy]

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.

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

This is why I continue to debate anti-gunners such as yourself.....I find new research......

It goes right to you "equation" and computations....M14 has brought this up in his posts....

Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America | Ryan McMaken


There have always been two big problems with these types of studies, and both were covered in a 2018 Rand Corp. analysis. One is that there is no data which directly tells us how many guns are owned by or available to Americans. Researches attempting to show correlations between crime and gun ownership must rely on proxies such as the "FS/S" proxy, which is the proportion of suicides that were firearm suicides. Other proxies include the proportion of residents who are military veterans, and "subscriptions per 100,000 people to Guns & Ammo."

Writing for Rand, researcher Rouslan Karimov finds this reliance on these proxies problematic, and notes "many such study designs are currently hampered by poor information on the prevalence of gun ownership and the consequent reliance on proxy measures of availability and prevalence."

A second problem with the more-guns-more-crime hypothesis is the fact that a high crime rate may itself be a driver of high rates of gun ownership. Karimov notes:

----------

Perhaps the largest study within this theoretical framework is Randolph Roth's American Homicide. Roth is doubtful of the pat answers given by both pundits and academics "who claim that they can measure the impact of gun laws or unemployment or the death penalty on homicide rates by controlling statistically for the impact of other variables." According to Roth, "Those claims are false."

Roth contends that any serious analysis must take into account trends in homicide measures over numerous decades in a wide variety of times and places. With this data, Roth concludes is it reasonable to accept LaFree's contention that the variables that correlate most clearly with homicide are "the proportion of adults who say they trust their government to do the right thing and the proportion who believe that most public officials are honest."

-----

The possibility the root causes of homicide lie far deeper than guns, however, would force gun-control advocates to prove that reducing access to legal guns would actually make Americans more peaceful. If Americans really are more homicidal due to deep-seated cultural and historical factors, then homicide is likely to persist at similar rates even in the absence of legal guns. Indeed, significant restrictions of access to guns may simply reduce access to necessary self-defense for many within what is a resiliently violent population.

 

[2aguy]

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

And here is an example...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[XponentialChaos]

LoL I already explained this a few times. I'm not sure I can simplify this any more than I have.

The math is correct with the variables provided as I defined them. You just question the relevance of the the variable because it includes suicides. The math, itself, is fine.

And there is the problem...garbage in, garbage out.....

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

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

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

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

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

This is why I continue to debate anti-gunners such as yourself.....I find new research......

It goes right to you "equation" and computations....M14 has brought this up in his posts....

Why Gun Ownership Rates Tell Us Little About Homicide Trends in America | Ryan McMaken


There have always been two big problems with these types of studies, and both were covered in a 2018 Rand Corp. analysis. One is that there is no data which directly tells us how many guns are owned by or available to Americans. Researches attempting to show correlations between crime and gun ownership must rely on proxies such as the "FS/S" proxy, which is the proportion of suicides that were firearm suicides. Other proxies include the proportion of residents who are military veterans, and "subscriptions per 100,000 people to Guns & Ammo."

Writing for Rand, researcher Rouslan Karimov finds this reliance on these proxies problematic, and notes "many such study designs are currently hampered by poor information on the prevalence of gun ownership and the consequent reliance on proxy measures of availability and prevalence."

A second problem with the more-guns-more-crime hypothesis is the fact that a high crime rate may itself be a driver of high rates of gun ownership. Karimov notes:

----------

Perhaps the largest study within this theoretical framework is Randolph Roth's American Homicide. Roth is doubtful of the pat answers given by both pundits and academics "who claim that they can measure the impact of gun laws or unemployment or the death penalty on homicide rates by controlling statistically for the impact of other variables." According to Roth, "Those claims are false."

Roth contends that any serious analysis must take into account trends in homicide measures over numerous decades in a wide variety of times and places. With this data, Roth concludes is it reasonable to accept LaFree's contention that the variables that correlate most clearly with homicide are "the proportion of adults who say they trust their government to do the right thing and the proportion who believe that most public officials are honest."

-----

The possibility the root causes of homicide lie far deeper than guns, however, would force gun-control advocates to prove that reducing access to legal guns would actually make Americans more peaceful. If Americans really are more homicidal due to deep-seated cultural and historical factors, then homicide is likely to persist at similar rates even in the absence of legal guns. Indeed, significant restrictions of access to guns may simply reduce access to necessary self-defense for many within what is a resiliently violent population.

Any data set is going to be imperfect - whether by polling or other means. The best we can do is work with the numbers we have.

I'm sure we have imperfect data on the CDC as well that you're referencing. Still, it's the best we have.