What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[TLK Valentine]

It sounds like you're the kind of person who needs someone else's numbers to make decisions. That's fine. Computers and other machines work that way too. I prefer to use common sense. If there's any doubt, I'll take a look at data that includes ALL the numbers.

Then why haven't you done so?

 

[Aldebaran]

Then why haven't you done so?

I have. After 27 years of gun ownership, I still haven't committed suicide, or shot anyone else with any of my guns. I have, however, gotten plenty of enjoyment and peace of mind by owning them. I hope that's ok with everyone.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have. After 27 years of gun ownership, I still haven't committed suicide, or shot anyone else with any of my guns. I have, however, gotten plenty of enjoyment and peace of mind by owning them. I hope that's ok with everyone.

Funny how one person's anecdotal evidence (and your own, at that) is the data that has ALL the numbers you prefer.

 

[Aldebaran]

Funny how one person's anecdotal evidence (and your own, at that) is the data that has ALL the numbers you prefer.

It's even "funnier" that my own evidence and numbers just happens to go against the biased numbers the anti-gun researchers put out there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's even "funnier" that my own evidence and numbers just happens to go against the biased numbers the anti-gun researchers put out there.

Some number: one (yourself)

 

[Obliquinaut]

Very condescending. Not surprising to see that though.

Of course it's condescending! I get tired of seeing non-scientists forming "opinions" without benefit of understanding the science. Nothing is stopping you from getting a graduate degree in science.

I suppose you could go back to post #922 where I gave instances where only the negative stats are even mentioned.

You DO realize that I actually tried to discuss the document that forms the FOUNDATION of all you have posted so far, right? I mean you DO understand what I'm talking about here, right? I'm trying to find the data behind all these claims that CDC focused only on negative data. But so far there is no actual link to the original data.

It sounds like you're the kind of person who needs someone else's numbers to make decisions.

LOL. I'm willing to bet I've collected more data in my career than you have in yours. AND I had to do the analysis of that data and submit it for peer review! How many peer reviewed articles in the sciences do YOU have?

That's fine. Computers and other machines work that way too. I prefer to use common sense.

That's almost always the kind of thing I hear from people who never took the time to learn statistics or data analytics. Good for you!

If there's any doubt, I'll take a look at data that includes ALL the numbers.

You don't even have a clue as to how statistics work, do you? That's too bad.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Is there any information you'd like to put out there to be scrutinized? You seem to like faulting whatever I show you. Let's see what you have.

Well, I sure would like to provide those to you but you see the NRA effectively quashed any real investigation of the link between gun ownership and threats to Americans for the last 17 or so years. I really would like to have the data but, well, you know the Truth-Police at the NRA don't want anyone to really investigate.

We can look at the numbers we do have:

Gun homicides in the US: 3.16 per 100,000 people (SOURCE) , which is about 60 times higher than the rate in the UK but puts us in the same bracket as Nicaragua!

Per Capita Gun ownership is now about double what it was in 1968. About 35% of us homes own 192 million firearms (SOURCE). Now, granted homes with guns in them have actually been declining recently (SOURCE), probably due to a decline in hunting. America still has among the highest rates of per capita gun ownership (SOURCE).

I guess we'll never really know if it is dangerous for a nation to have SO MANY guns because a small group of gun-industry lobbyists through the NRA have effectively kept the topic radioactive for any legislators to tackle it and for any researchers to study it.

Oh well.

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's even "funnier" that my own evidence and numbers just happens to go against the biased numbers the anti-gun researchers put out there.

How do you know? I mean you keep posting citations for a study that shows this data is somehow skewed I can't find an actual link to the study! And it sounds like it is based on a presentation...may not even be peer-reviewed!

 

[Aldebaran]

Some number: one (yourself)

More than that:
Number of suicides I've committed as a gun owner--zero
Number of mass shootings I've done as a gun owner--zero
Number of accidental shootings--zero
Number of drug deals my guns have been involved in--zero

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, I sure would like to provide those to you but you see the NRA effectively quashed any real investigation of the link between gun ownership and threats to Americans for the last 17 or so years. I really would like to have the data but, well, you know the Truth-Police at the NRA don't want anyone to really investigate.

So all those negative stats anti-gun people like to use come from...nowhere?

We can look at the numbers we do have:

Gun homicides in the US: 3.16 per 100,000 people (SOURCE) , which is about 60 times higher than the rate in the UK but puts us in the same bracket as Nicaragua!

And there you have it--the negative stats that anti-gunners like to use. See? You don't need the CDC to generate those numbers for you after all. BTW, 3.16 out of 100,000 is hardly considered much of an emergency to solve. Are you aware that 10.9 out of 100,000 people were killed in car accidents in 2015? That's more than 3 times the rate of homicides with guns. But I'll bet you still own a car, which shows the hypocrisy of everything you've been saying about living by the numbers: Fatality Facts

So how about positive stats? How many times have legitimate gun owners defended themselves? Your favorite data sources won't tell you about that.

Per Capita Gun ownership is now about double what it was in 1968. About 35% of us homes own 192 million firearms (SOURCE). Now, granted homes with guns in them have actually been declining recently (SOURCE), probably due to a decline in hunting. America still has among the highest rates of per capita gun ownership (SOURCE).

I guess we'll never really know if it is dangerous for a nation to have SO MANY guns because a small group of gun-industry lobbyists through the NRA have effectively kept the topic radioactive for any legislators to tackle it and for any researchers to study it.

Oh well.

You've already listed your numbers. No need to waste more money on more numbers.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So all those negative stats anti-gun people like to use come from...nowhere?

What specific stats are you talking about? Obviously the ones I provided I gave references for, but they are not directly "anti-gun". They just show a problem that seems to correlate danger with higher rates of gun ownership.

And there you have it--the negative stats that anti-gunners like to use. See? You don't need the CDC to generate those numbers for you after all.

Actually it isn't. It's a rough correlation. I would dearly love to see the details of how that works out year over year. There's even things you have heard (like the decrease in individual gun ownership, does it relate to hunting decrease? Is there a signal within that?)

BTW, 3.16 out of 100,000 is hardly considered much of an emergency to solve.

This is the kind of thing bias brings forward. A "lack of concern because the numbers don't seem high". It's the same thing when Climate Skeptics point to how little ppm of CO2 there are in the atmosphere. But as in all things in science the magnitude of the numbers doesn't equate to the impact. In this case the 3.16/100000 is often ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than any other developed country on earth.

We are among the highest rates of gun homicides in the developed world. Our peer group in terms of gun homicide rates is mostly among the lawless and 3rd world nations.

Are you aware that 10.9 out of 100,000 people were killed in car accidents in 2015?

That is a very high number. It is numbers like that that got us to make seatbelt laws mandatory. And to put extremely high penalties on drunk driving etc. It is why we have specific standards for reflectivity of traffic signs (there's an entire manual on that very topic alone!). It is also why you pay what you do for your auto insurance. That's based on actuarial tables which are...get ready for it...statistics.

So how about positive stats? How many times have legitimate gun owners defended themselves? Your favorite data sources won't tell you about that.

Actually the DO! Remember the 2.5million figure that the NRA inflated to show "good guys with a gun"? The actual numbers are only about 700,000 each year but they show a positive effect.

The question is: is that enough to offset the extremely high rate of homicides and successful suicides and harm to women in the home? That's where our national will comes in. But the numbers should be there.

You've already listed your numbers. No need to waste more money on more numbers.

I am so glad my vote offsets yours! Because at least one of us is making decisions based on data.

 

[Aldebaran]

What specific stats are you talking about? Obviously the ones I provided I gave references for, but they are not directly "anti-gun". They just show a problem that seems to correlate danger with higher rates of gun ownership.

Just mentioning things like "Here's how many people die due to owning a gun" and "Here's how much more likely you are to be killed if you keep a gun for defense" is what I'm referring to. Again, look at the links I posted in #922:

https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-by-the-numbers/

Statistics | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

This is what I'm talking about when I say "negative statistics only".

This is the kind of thing bias brings forward. A "lack of concern because the numbers don't seem high". It's the same thing when Climate Skeptics point to how little ppm of CO2 there are in the atmosphere. But as in all things in science the magnitude of the numbers doesn't equate to the impact. In this case the 3.16/100000 is often ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE larger than any other developed country on earth.

Oh please! I simply gave you the numbers that you seem so fond of. I showed you how 10.9 out 100,000 people are killed in car accidents, but yet you seem to think 3.16 people out of 100,000 is a bigger problem. So now you would rather talk about the atmosphere of the earth. Funny.

That is a very high number. It is numbers like that that got us to make seatbelt laws mandatory. And to put extremely high penalties on drunk driving etc. It is why we have specific standards for reflectivity of traffic signs (there's an entire manual on that very topic alone!). It is also why you pay what you do for your auto insurance. That's based on actuarial tables which are...get ready for it...statistics.

Yet these numbers are what we have AFTER all those regulations were put into place. That's right, more than 3 times as many people die in car accidents than are killed with guns after all the regulations were put in place regarding cars, and there's no "NRA" in the automotive industry doing all the things you don't like them doing that you claim get in the way. So no, those numbers aren't what got us all those automotive regulations. They are what we ended up with afterwards.

 

[lasthero]

Gun homicides in the US: 3.16 per 100,000 people (SOURCE)

Sorry to butt in, but where on that source is the 3.16 number? I’m having trouble finding it?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Oh please! I simply gave you the numbers that you seem so fond of. I showed you how 10.9 out 100,000 people are killed in car accidents, but yet you seem to think 3.16 people out of 100,000 is a bigger problem. So now you would rather talk about the atmosphere of the earth. Funny.

-sigh-. NO! What I was saying was that simply saying 3.6/100,000 sounds small to you doesn't mean you're correct in saying it is not a problem. Just because auto accidents are higher than gun deaths doesn't change the fact that the US rates of gun homicides are MUCH HIGHER (sometimes by orders of MAGNITUDE over other developed countries).

Yet these numbers are what we have AFTER all those regulations were put into place.

And they used to be much higher! THAT'S. THE. POINT.

That's right, more than 3 times as many people die in car accidents than are killed with guns after all the regulations were put in place regarding cars, and there's no "NRA" in the automotive industry doing all the things you don't like them doing that you claim get in the way.

Really? You may be too young to remember how people howled over mandatory seat belt laws. Or how hard it was for safety constraints to be put into cars over the complaints of the auto manufacturers. Every hear of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

Then there's this from the Smithsonian:

In the 1950s, physicians and university professors who were concerned about motorist protection introduced a scientific response to auto safety problems. Crash testing at universities pinpointed the causes and effects of bodily impact inside a car during a collision. These studies convinced many people that it was necessary to “package” the driver and passengers with seat belts and padded dashboards. By 1956, those features were available as options on most new cars.

In the late 1950s, elected officials studied scientific findings from university crash tests. In the early 1960s, many state legislatures passed laws requiring seat belts or seat belt anchors in new cars. This movement grew into a comprehensive government response to auto safety issues. In 1966, Congress authorized the federal government to set safety standards for new cars. By 1968, seat belts, padded dashboards, and other safety features were mandatory equipment. (SOURCE)

 

[Obliquinaut]

Sorry to butt in, but where on that source is the 3.16 number? I’m having trouble finding it?

Actually the number is higher now. On the link (HERE) click on the entry for "DEATH AND INJURY" and then navigate down to GUN HOMICIDES PER 100,000. The value for 2014 is 3.43.

Further on down the "Justifiable Homicides with a Gun" per 100,000 people is 0.22 for 2013. That was something like 681 legal-intervention gun homicides. Meanwhile in 2013 there were 11,208 gun homicides overall.

I guess when you have 6% of the gun homicides that are "legal intervention" we should....feel safe?

 

[Tanj]

Calm down and read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ot-receive-gun-research-funding/#34f315a2282d

Unintentional irony and humour is the best kind.

In fact, the CDC conducted a major two-year independent study of various regulatory laws in 2003. The investigation considered bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The study concluded there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

In other words, Forbes evidence of bias in the CDC in favour of gun control is a CDC article saying gun control may not prevent violence.

It really doesn't get any better than that. Welcome to the ENTERTAINMENT ONLY bin Forbes.

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually the number is higher now. On the link (HERE) click on the entry for "DEATH AND INJURY" and then navigate down to GUN HOMICIDES PER 100,000. The value for 2014 is 3.43.

Further on down the "Justifiable Homicides with a Gun" per 100,000 people is 0.22 for 2013. That was something like 681 legal-intervention gun homicides. Meanwhile in 2013 there were 11,208 gun homicides overall.

I guess when you have 6% of the gun homicides that are "legal intervention" we should....feel safe?

Notice in the same section that the number of gun homicides was the lowest in 2014 at 10,945 since 2000. During that time, quite a few more guns are in the hands of citizens. There goes the idea that more guns equal more deaths and crime.

 

[Aldebaran]

-sigh-. NO! What I was saying was that simply saying 3.6/100,000 sounds small to you doesn't mean you're correct in saying it is not a problem. Just because auto accidents are higher than gun deaths doesn't change the fact that the US rates of gun homicides are MUCH HIGHER (sometimes by orders of MAGNITUDE over other developed countries).

How many deaths per 100,000 would it take to not be a problem? How about 1 or 2 per 100,000? Is that a problem? Or are you one of those who will say that 1 life is too many, and therefore we need to ban all guns?

And they used to be much higher! THAT'S. THE. POINT.

So was the personal freedom to make the choice about whether or not to wear a seat belt without getting pulled over by the police.

Really? You may be too young to remember how people howled over mandatory seat belt laws. Or how hard it was for safety constraints to be put into cars over the complaints of the auto manufacturers. Every hear of Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any Speed"?

See my previous comment above.[/QUOTE]

 

[Obliquinaut]

Notice in the same section that the number of gun homicides was the lowest in 2014 at 10,945 since 2000. During that time, quite a few more guns are in the hands of citizens. There goes the idea that more guns equal more deaths and crime.

I think we all get it that you don't necessarily work with data and so you are prone to doing what freshmen science students do: taking two points on a graph and drawing a conclusion. There's noise in all data sets. So it's really a rookie mistake to snag two points and draw a line through them.

BUT, that being said, it would be important to know more about the data. It may well be that these two are negatively correlated. But one can't simply randomly grab two points and say "Seeeeee, a trend!"

That's not how data works.

In fact such a study was already done! As luck would have it there's a PEER REVIEWED STUDY out by scientists at Boston University. You can see it HERE
----------------------------------
"Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

"Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."
-----------------------------
(Emphasis added)

NOW, here's the key, they did a regression analysis on the rate of gun ownership and gun homicide rates and suicide rates. It is important to see sufficient data to account for any noise in the data and see if there's a solid regression.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think we all get it that you don't necessarily work with data and so you are prone to doing what freshmen science students do: taking two points on a graph and drawing a conclusion. There's noise in all data sets. So it's really a rookie mistake to snag two points and draw a line through them.

BUT, that being said, it would be important to know more about the data. It may well be that these two are negatively correlated. But one can't simply randomly grab two points and say "Seeeeee, a trend!"

That's not how data works.

I guess I should have told you to go to that site that you keep posting with those number and tell you look at the figures and see for yourself. But I won't trouble you with that. Here are the numbers. In 2014, the number of gun deaths is the lowest since 2000, even though there are far more guns around now than back in 2000, with the numbers generally falling since 1998.

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257