Obliquinaut
Сделайте Америку прекрасной
- Jun 30, 2017
- 2,091
- 1,635
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Why do you dislike actual scientific studies?
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
You mean you don't like the figures I posted for you (that don't coincide with the anti-gun narrative)? Those numbers came from the site that YOU originally posted. Suddenly not liking that site so much?
You know, I took your advice and I used the PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH FIREARMS from that data and I regressed it on RATE OF GUN HOMICIDES/100,000 from the same dataset.
Here's what the regression looked like:
Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet
I got a line with an adjR^2 = -.1248 It was effectively FLAT between 1997 and 2014. The F-test on the regression had a p-value = 0.9717. MEANING I would be making a SERIOUS error to assume the slope of that line was anything but ZERO.
And when you compare year-based data the rate of gun homicides between 1997 and 2013 is pretty flat...as is the proportion of households with guns. 1997 was an exceptionally high year for gun homicides and would have overleveraged the regression so I dropped it.
NOW, I'm also aware that these are TIME SERIES DATA so drawing a time-series F-test on the regression might be biased *(I don't normally do time series data, so I'm not so comfortable dealing with it). ANd I will readily grant this was crude and off the cuff. But hopefully you get the idea that you can't just go poking at the data and draw really robust conclusions based on your "feels".
You can check it out for yourself. Here's the data:
Yr HomRate %Households withguns
2014 3.43 31
2013 3.54 37
2012 3.7 33.1
2011 3.55
2010 3.59 31.1
2009 3.75
2008 4.01 34
2007 4.19
2006 4.29 33.1
2005 4.18
2004 3.97 34.7
2003 4.11
2002 4.11 33.5
2001 3.98
2000 3.84 32.4
1999 3.88
1998 3.37 34.8
1997 7.07
And that's why I ran some statistics on them. You may not be all that savvy with statistics but generally it's not possible to easily draw simple conclusions from the data. Especially the conclusions you want to draw. FYI.
This is a comparison of the number of households with guns vs gun deaths. Yes, it's pretty flat, although it has been accepted that the number of guns in the country (the things that people say is the problem that needs to be addressed) has increased by quite a bit.
Now, what is it that you say is the problem that needs to be addressed? Is it the number of total guns in the country, or the number of them that each owner possesses, or something else?
No, you're correct in that I'm not as much into statistics. But there are things beyond statistics that factor into decisions.
Then you can run the data and do the stats if you like!
4. THERE IS NO REASON THAT A HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY SHOULDN'T BE ANALYZING EVERY SCRAP OF DATA POSSIBLE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM A LOBBYING GROUP IN SERVICE TO THE GUN INDUSTRY.
I didn't see figures on the site for how many guns there were by each year. But if it's true that there are far more now that 15 or so years ago, and the rate of deaths per 100,000 people has actually dropped during that time
Unless that particular agency has already had a history of bias: bias: Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research
But when you think about it, wouldn't it make more sense for firearms research to be done by an agency that actually has the word "firearm" as part of it's title (BATFE) rather than one that has "disease control" as its name and purpose?
I'd be OK with that! I'd even be happy if the FBI ran the values. Crime reporting systems in the US are a fractured mess from what I've heard. But I'm willing to entertain the data from any unbiased source. If you have a problem with the CDC (even though you don't really have a problem with them in that I suspect you don't have any opinion of their work overall and if your health or safety were threatened you'd be just as happy to have the CDC's input),
but if you have a "selective" problem with the CDC then let's have the data from somewhere.
But they do get to have a voice in the discussion. Gun owners become a member of that organization to be their voice.And the NRA doesn't get to dictate what the results are either.
Maybe if they were working to cure cancer or some other disease rather than using selective data to push more more restrictions on what I own.
Yes. Somewhere that has a history of being unbiased would be fine with me.
Personally, I don't see a real need for anyone to gather statistics to tell me what I can or should do.
But they do get to have a voice in the discussion.
Gun owners become a member of that organization to be their voice.
I'm still waiting to see proof of your claims there.
Again, still waiting for evidence to support that claim (other than someone talking about something someone said somewhere about something)
That's because you don't know that it is pretty much what is done that touches every single thing in your life. Do you pay insurance? Your rate is based on statistics. Do you buy products from the store? Yup, QA/QC is statistics. Do you use any medicine? Again, the reason you can get it is because it has been tested through massive layers of statistical analysis. There's so much in your life that is driven by statistics but few people know enough about them to know where they're used.
Only insofar as owning guns is proven to not be detrimental to our overall safety. You can't own a full automatic gun right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large. YOU can't own a nuclear weapon right now. Why? Because of the danger they pose to society at large.
Need I go on to explain the world to you?
Here. Although you'll probably just read it in order to look for fault with it: The History of Public Health Gun Control – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
I don't look into the statistics about any of those things when I make my decisions.
Do you think owning a gun in general is a danger to society at large?
America was founded by and maintains a type of "pioneer spirit" that really doesn't fit in modern society. We have retained a sense that we are capable of surviving alone and in the wild while, in reality, we AREN'T capable of that by and large.
We fantasize that we are the cinema heroes we see on the screen, when we aren't that. We are just scared children who think that getting a gun will make us into a man.
No one is arguing against the idea that a gun can, in the hands of someone properly trained, turn a potentially bad situation into a good situation. One CAN protect themselves with a gun. But statistically it won't actually be used that way. It is far more likely that a gun in the home will result in a bad situation for the general public.
This is not to say that it can't be good in the right hands and the right situation.
Who is this "We" you're referring to? Most people are quite realistic about how a gun is used in defense and that we aren't "cinema heroes".
What do statistics say would happen with someone who actually has training rather than just buying a gun, loading it and hoping for the best?
Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make.
I don't believe that. There are too many people who are unrealistic about their abilities in just about every sphere of existence. I include myself in that tally.
Statistically that person would be less likely to do damage with it. But you keep avoiding the larger point which is that we see a positive correlation between increased gun ownership by the populace and increased gun deaths. Most of these deaths are not in self-defense or in the service of the overall good.
BUT we know today that not every country on earth should have a nuclear arsenal. Arguably NO ONE should. But none of those who have them are willing to give them up. You know, for "security's sake".
Sounds a lot like your argument for guns in the hands of individuals. SURE some nations are going to be really good citizens with their nuclear arsenals, but some nations will be very very bad with theirs.
But that's a fatalistic approach. If you deem yourself to be unrealistic in your ability about pretty much everything, then you're expecting to fail at everything. I'd rather not look at things that way.
The point I'm trying to make is that in your personal life, you have to take a look at yourself and decide what you're capable of, what your skills are, what your training and experience is and what you're willing/able to do. Ignoring your own personal traits and focusing on statistics ignores all of that. And if statistics lead you to take a fatalistic approach to everything, then that's not a very desirable way to live. If it's for you, then fine. I choose not to do it that way.
Most countries have actually been doing just fine with their nuclear weapons.
The ones the USA used did save many lives. Since that time, no country has used theirs in any way.
If the other countries that have them now didn't have them since World War 2, there would have been more wars between then and now.
No doubt the USA would probably have been invaded by now.
We'll never know that, of course, but China could have pulled off something like that by now if we didn't have nuclear weapons.
That's how they act as a deterrent.
In the same way, people simply owning guns is a deterrent to home invasions that don't even necessarily need to be fired to be effective.
My point is there are enough people out there who misjudge their abilities (it is a common human foible) that increasing their access to dangerous materials will likely result in the numbers we see in our society with regards to gun deaths.
How many people every single day are arrested for drunk driving in the USA? According to the FBI in 2014 alone there were 1,117,852 arrests for drunk driving (SOURCE)
There's over 1 million Americans who thought they were able to drive after drinking sufficiently to impair their abilities.
Do you honestly think there are no Americans who grossly misjudge their ability to protect themselves with a gun?
You are aware of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, right? I mean you do know that's why there are as few countries as their are with nuclear weapons right? That it is generally accepted that FEWER countries should have nukes as opposed to MORE, right?
And you can see the parallel I'm drawing with regards to guns, right?
Not really. We've still had plenty of wars, usually proxy wars like North Korea and Vietnam. The nukes didn't stop the bloodshed
Without nuclear weapons the US would have been invaded? Where do you get that from?
China? Really? No idea where you are getting that idea. China, if they really wanted to, could destroy the USA in under a week today without ever dropping a nuke. They hold so much of our debt that they could decimate our economy. But they have no reason to do so. So why would anyone care if we had a nuke?
Excellent point: and just like guns in the home we pay dearly for having this "defense". We have massive areas of contamination spread around the USA that were former nuclear weapons plants (Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, etc.) where Americans were harmed by the mess left over. AND we have to CONSTANTLY be wary of nuclear proliferation...because if some of our nuclear weapons material was stolen from us it could wind up in the wrong hands and harm could come to us. (That's why we are terrified of proliferation in general.)
If your theory was correct we'd all be safer if EVERYONE had nuclear weapons. But no one (NO ONE) on earth thinks that would be a good idea.
Why is good for Americans to all be armed to the teeth when we don't even want that to happen globally?
The only connection I've tried to make between guns and nukes is that they act as a deterrent against an attack--one of them being against a country, and the other being on a more personal level in your own house, or even just you when you're out in public.
Are you making a case for outlawing alcohol, or a case for having laws against negligent gun use?
It would have been DIShonest for me to have said that, which is why I never did.
North Korea didn't have them at the time, and Vietnam still doesn't, as far as I know
They would care because they wouldn't want one of ours heading their way. Isn't that obvious?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?