What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

Question. Do you think that all people who own guns should also join the NRA? This topic came up at a party I was at over the weekend. I was shocked at how divided the crowd was.
Do you go to parties with gun enthusiasts?God this is so other-worldly for me. My neighbors never talk stuff like this.
We can tell.
Lol. You think that gives you any more reason to speak to policy? It doesn't. In the end I will cancel out your vote. I don't live for guns. You do. I'm happy with that.
I don't live for guns. I understand what they are and their usefulness and their drawbacks. That's called being a responsible gun owner. You have very little exposure to guns. That makes you uninformed. And for some reason, your uninformed vote counts as much as my researched and experienced vote on the same issue.
This is such a dumb comment on every level. I've never been around heroin. Never seen it in my life. But, I know plenty well how bad it is.I also know we've got 30,000 United States citizens who died of gun shot wounds this past year. Your "researched" position makes you an expert on the particulars of gun stuff and equally vacant, intellectually, on issues related to public policy and safety. Your hobby and paranoia kill people. It's time to turn the page on your way of doing things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
You are ignoring the fact that states with higher CCW participants have lower gun violence. The fact that felons cannot apply for a CCW is irrelevant when discussing responsible citizens that own guns in which CCW is the best representative of that population that we have. You stated:

I'd guess the majority of gun violence in the US is criminal on criminal
and because of this you think guns are bad, guns cause violence - while in fact you cannot prove causation something that has been pointed out at you time and again, it is also the reason we keep repeating ourselves in stating these CCW statistics which you are ignoring since "felons cannot attain them", since it does not nicely fit into your biased views of gun ownership in America.
:mellow:
I am pointing out a contradiction to your hell bent belief that more guns = more murders while you gloss over the details that don't support your POV.
I don't have a hell bent belief. I have data that is so far uncontradicted. The most you've been able to muster against that is the old, "correlation <> causation" canard but then unironically keep posting cherry-picked correlations summary statistics to imply causations and somehow expect to be taken seriously.ETA: You don't even ever have correlations.
In absolute terms, you couldn't be more wrong. More guns does equate to more gun-related deaths. Now, if your argument is that the rate of deaths does not correlate with gun ownership, then the findings are more equivocal, trending of course to the correlation, but certainly not as direct.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If only we had stricter controls and bans like in California.
LOL. This is truly the elephant in the room for the gun grabbers. Strict gun laws will not prevent evil, it didn't the last ban, it won't this time. Yet even Pravda tells us to not give up our guns. What do they know that we don't? Hmmmmm, maybe it's all those deaths that happened at the hands of their government when they gave up their guns 65+ years ago. I am truly baffled by the grabbers who think it is impossible for something like that couldn't happen here. Do I think it's probable? No. But I'm guessing the Russians then felt the same way the grabbers in America feel right now.
 
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
You are ignoring the fact that states with higher CCW participants have lower gun violence. The fact that felons cannot apply for a CCW is irrelevant when discussing responsible citizens that own guns in which CCW is the best representative of that population that we have. You stated:

I'd guess the majority of gun violence in the US is criminal on criminal
and because of this you think guns are bad, guns cause violence - while in fact you cannot prove causation something that has been pointed out at you time and again, it is also the reason we keep repeating ourselves in stating these CCW statistics which you are ignoring since "felons cannot attain them", since it does not nicely fit into your biased views of gun ownership in America.
:mellow:
I am pointing out a contradiction to your hell bent belief that more guns = more murders while you gloss over the details that don't support your POV.
I don't have a hell bent belief. I have data that is so far uncontradicted. The most you've been able to muster against that is the old, "correlation <> causation" canard but then unironically keep posting cherry-picked correlations summary statistics to imply causations and somehow expect to be taken seriously.ETA: You don't even ever have correlations.
You have nothing but biased surveys. You do not even have correlation. What is the formula of guns to gun-related homicides? How does your formula apply to every country in the world? If you had a positive correlation the answers to these questions should be a no brainer for you to prove your point, but you can't.
 
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
'Matthias said:
'5 digit know nothing said:
You are ignoring the fact that states with higher CCW participants have lower gun violence. The fact that felons cannot apply for a CCW is irrelevant when discussing responsible citizens that own guns in which CCW is the best representative of that population that we have. You stated:

I'd guess the majority of gun violence in the US is criminal on criminal
and because of this you think guns are bad, guns cause violence - while in fact you cannot prove causation something that has been pointed out at you time and again, it is also the reason we keep repeating ourselves in stating these CCW statistics which you are ignoring since "felons cannot attain them", since it does not nicely fit into your biased views of gun ownership in America.
:mellow:
I am pointing out a contradiction to your hell bent belief that more guns = more murders while you gloss over the details that don't support your POV.
I don't have a hell bent belief. I have data that is so far uncontradicted. The most you've been able to muster against that is the old, "correlation <> causation" canard but then unironically keep posting cherry-picked correlations summary statistics to imply causations and somehow expect to be taken seriously.ETA: You don't even ever have correlations.
You have nothing but biased surveys. You do not even have correlation. What is the formula of guns to gun-related homicides? How does your formula apply to every country in the world? If you had a positive correlation the answers to these questions should be a no brainer for you to prove your point, but you can't.
I swear, you're like a poorly-written Turing Machine. I point out pages ago you rely on cherry-picked data, you try to characterize one of the studies I linked to as cherry picking the nations which they included since in their sample of 26 they left off 2 which you thought you were important. I point out that you don't have correlations, you try to say that I don't.Here's the link to the citations; you can look up their results if you wish. And here's the website you linked to pages ago. I would've expected you to remember your own citation.

David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard Youth Violence Prevention Center, notes that most types of crime don’t necessarily involve guns – car theft or muggings or rape, for instance. But other crimes, such as murder, often do. Studies that have looked at gun ownership and murder rates, he says, have shown "yes, there’s a strong relationship." Such studies, Hemenway says, have controlled for certain variables, comparing urban areas to other urban areas or households in violent areas to other households in violent areas. With those types of studies, "the evidence is very compelling." There’s more gun murder in areas with more guns, and more murder overall, he says.

That’s not to say that taking the guns away from such areas would necessarily lead to a reduction in the murder rate. Such studies have shown a statistically significant relationship between guns and murder but not a causal one.

One of Hemenway’s studies, published in 2004 and coauthored by Lisa M. Hepburn, reviewed commonly cited research from peer-reviewed journals. It found that studies of the United States or U.S. cities, states and regions "generally find a statistically significant gun prevalence-homicide association." The report said that the evidence from such "U.S. cross-sectional studies is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates." Hemenway’s report also found that international studies "typically show that in high-income countries with more firearms, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." So where there are guns, there is likely a higher rate of murders committed with guns in particular. However, the report noted, "None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide."
 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".

 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
Were you the guy who accused the other side of being condescending? Can't remember now, there have been so many truly obnoxious posts in this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MontCo school suspends 6-year-old for pretend gunshotDecember 29, 2012 | 8:00 pmA Montgomery County elementary school student was suspended for a pretend gunshot a week after Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.The 6-year-old, who attends Roscoe R. Nix Elementary School in Silver Spring, made a gun with his hands, pointed it at another student and said "pow," according to Robin Ficker, the boy's attorney. He was given a one-day suspension, with a conference on the matter planned for Jan. 2, the day students return to school from winter break."What they're doing is looking at the worst possible interpretation of a young, naive 6-year-old," Ficker said. "This is a little child who can't form the intent to do anything like that."According to a letter sent by Assistant Principal Renee Garraway to the child's parents, this was not the first time something like this had happened."Your son ... was involved in a serious incident," Garraway wrote. "[He] threatened to shoot a student. He was spoken to earlier today about a similar incident."Ficker said the boy's family was never told about any previous issues. "They won't say what the similar incident is," Ficker said. "It just shows the overreaction."The letter says that the child's parents were informed of their son's suspension the day of the incident, though Ficker said the school should have invited his mother in to discuss the situation before a suspension was handed down."They could have called the mother in. They didn't do that. They just said, 'You're suspended,' " he said. "Five years from now, when someone in to Montgomery County looks at his permanent record, they're going to see that he threatened to shoot another student."According to the letter, the ruling can be appealed within 10 days, although the suspension has already been served. Garraway declined to comment.Montgomery County Public Schools spokesman Dana Tofig said it was policy not to comment on student disciplinary matters. He added, though, that schools make sure parents are aware of behavioral issues."Generally, in an incident involving the behavior of our younger students, we will make sure that the student and family are well-informed of any behavior that needs to change and understand the consequences if the behavior does not change," Tofig said. "And that's especially true if the behavior is affecting the learning environment or how safe another student feels."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/montco-school-suspends-6-year-old-for-pretend-gunshot/article/2517080?utm_campaign=obinsite#Man, some of you should become school administrators. You have the proper mindset.
 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
You can look up the cites. If you have any experience in statistical modeling, which looks really dubious, you would recognize the terms of art used in the link which you provided: "strong relationship", "statistically significant relationship", "controlled for certain variables", "statistically significant ... association". These are all phrases used when someone is describing the results of something which has been looked at for statistical linkage, not just throwing out anecdoctal evidence.It's like every time you post your goal is to show that you understand less of the conversation.

 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
You can look up the cites. If you have any experience in statistical modeling, which looks really dubious, you would recognize the terms of art used in the link which you provided: "strong relationship", "statistically significant relationship", "controlled for certain variables", "statistically significant ... association". These are all phrases used when someone is describing the results of something which has been looked at for statistical linkage, not just throwing out anecdoctal evidence.It's like every time you post your goal is to show that you understand less of the conversation.
Oh yeah? Well, there won't BE any more conversation when the National Socialists take over the way they did in Russia!! All your fancy words won't stop a drone that bombs your house will it? But my semi automatic just might!
 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
You can look up the cites. If you have any experience in statistical modeling, which looks really dubious, you would recognize the terms of art used in the link which you provided: "strong relationship", "statistically significant relationship", "controlled for certain variables", "statistically significant ... association". These are all phrases used when someone is describing the results of something which has been looked at for statistical linkage, not just throwing out anecdoctal evidence.It's like every time you post your goal is to show that you understand less of the conversation.
By country show a correlation between guns and intentional homicide rate, it is really easy, but I understand why you won't. There is no correlation.
 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
Your ignorance is as rich as your inability to extrapolate from a simple concept. I didn't realize how steeped in stupidity the gun lobby folks are until this thread came about.Anyway, here are a couple references (volumes of others) that you may be incapable of or lack interest in reading, understanding, or interpreting but are being posted nonetheless for folks who wish to use as a logical starting point for discussion.

Kaplan and Geling, 1998 Bottom line: Aggregate availability of firearms strongly associated with firearm deaths

Hemenway and Miller, 2000. Bottom line: In simple regressions across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.

 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
You can look up the cites. If you have any experience in statistical modeling, which looks really dubious, you would recognize the terms of art used in the link which you provided: "strong relationship", "statistically significant relationship", "controlled for certain variables", "statistically significant ... association". These are all phrases used when someone is describing the results of something which has been looked at for statistical linkage, not just throwing out anecdoctal evidence.It's like every time you post your goal is to show that you understand less of the conversation.
By country show a correlation between guns and intentional homicide rate, it is really easy, but I understand why you won't. There is no correlation.
:whoosh: Are you just missing the parts that talk about there have been studies comparing nation to nation as well as other studies comparing localities (states/cities/counties) only within the US? And holding constant for other variables, comparing US localities, the evidence is consistent and compelling that a higher number of guns results in a higher number of murders? In short, no matter how much you want to try to dismiss the international studies by quoting haphazard data it's completely irrelevant to the studies done wholly within the US?

 
Now are those correlations? Are they regression models? I haven't read the actual results so can't tell you. But the way they're characterized, they're not, "biased surveys".
cor·re·la·tion noun

Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.

Formula?

Proof showing your correlation of guns to gun-related intentional homicides by country?

These aren't difficult questions, maybe you don't understand what correlation means.
You can look up the cites. If you have any experience in statistical modeling, which looks really dubious, you would recognize the terms of art used in the link which you provided: "strong relationship", "statistically significant relationship", "controlled for certain variables", "statistically significant ... association". These are all phrases used when someone is describing the results of something which has been looked at for statistical linkage, not just throwing out anecdoctal evidence.It's like every time you post your goal is to show that you understand less of the conversation.
By country show a correlation between guns and intentional homicide rate, it is really easy, but I understand why you won't. There is no correlation.
Please see above. You may not understand statistics, so this may do you no good. But, it's out there.
 
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my bias

Top 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Pop Rank Country Pop IHR G1 China 1,347,350,000 1 4.92 India 1,210,193,422 3.4 4.23 United States 315,033,000 4.2 88.84 Indonesia 237,641,326 8.1 0.55 Brazil 193,946,886 21 86 Pakistan 181,646,000 7.8 11.67 Nigeria 166,629,000 12.2 1.58 Bangladesh 152,518,015 2.7 0.59 Russia 143,300,000 10.2 8.910 Japan 127,520,000 0.4 0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8

Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

China, the most populated country in the world, has more guns per capita than half of the top 10, yet only Japan has a lower intentional homicide rate with the other 4 countries with fewer guns having 3.4x, 12.2x, 8.1x and 2.7x more intentional homicides per 100k

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, when you don't understand how to run or interpret statistical analyses, it is much more comforting to stick with a flawed set of assumptions because you can never reject the null hypothesis. This is the strength of the gun nut position. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, deny reality, and continue the madness all in the name of supporting your hobby and advancing paranoia propaganda.
 
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryChina, the most populated country in the world, has more guns per capita than half of the top 10, yet only Japan has a lower intentional homicide rate.
Wow, that is interesting.
 
I guess none of you have read Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. (Or seen the fine film adaptation.) What was the FIRST THING the Psychlos did after destroying 99% of the human population? Took away all the guns. So don't say that it can't ever happen.

 
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, when you don't understand how to run or interpret statistical analyses, it is much more comforting to stick with a flawed set of assumptions because you can never reject the null hypothesis. This is the strength of the gun nut position. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, deny reality, and continue the madness all in the name of supporting your hobby and advancing paranoia propaganda.
What is your background with statistics? I have worked with data for over 20 years.Please go ahead and show me your model that supports the discussion at hand.
 
The U.S. has 3x as many guns as the 5 countries listed ahead of them combined in order of intentional homicide rank and yet only have 1/14 the number of intentional homicides of those same 5 countries.

Indonesia has the 9th fewest guns out of the top 10 yet show the highest "correlation" between guns and IHR at 16.2, the U.S. is dead last at 0.047.

More Guns = More Murders my ###

 
Last edited by a moderator:
China, the most populated country in the world, has more guns per capita than half of the top 10, yet only Japan has a lower intentional homicide rate with the other 4 countries with fewer guns having 3.4x, 12.2x, 8.1x and 2.7x more intentional homicides per 100k
Yeah, but you forgot to mention a few facts:http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/china1. Most guns in China are not privately owned.2. Private citizens in China are only allowed to own hand-held pistols and non-semi-automatic weapons, and these are highly regulated and restricted.3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
 
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, when you don't understand how to run or interpret statistical analyses, it is much more comforting to stick with a flawed set of assumptions because you can never reject the null hypothesis. This is the strength of the gun nut position. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, deny reality, and continue the madness all in the name of supporting your hobby and advancing paranoia propaganda.
What is your background with statistics? I have worked with data for over 20 years.Please go ahead and show me your model that supports the discussion at hand.
Neuroscience. Was in academia before, peer reviewed publications, now do consultation work. You? Saying you have worked with data for 20 years could mean anything. The fact that you are unaware of or reject the reams of literature demonstrating the gun ownership:fatality relationship, notwithstanding your sloppy use and misunderstanding of basic statistical language leads me to speculate your working with data has been limited to keeping fantasy football statistics for the past 20 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, when you don't understand how to run or interpret statistical analyses, it is much more comforting to stick with a flawed set of assumptions because you can never reject the null hypothesis. This is the strength of the gun nut position. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, deny reality, and continue the madness all in the name of supporting your hobby and advancing paranoia propaganda.
What is your background with statistics? I have worked with data for over 20 years.Please go ahead and show me your model that supports the discussion at hand.
Neuroscience. Was in academia before, peer reviewed publications, now do consultation work. You? Saying you have worked with data for 20 years could mean anything. The fact that you are unaware of or reject the reams of literature demonstrating the gun ownership:fatality relationship, notwithstanding your sloppy use and misunderstanding of basic statistical language leads me to speculate your working with data has been limited to keeping fantasy football statistics for the past 20 years.
Databases, financial data, and politics, but please continue to be condescending and I look forward to your model showing more guns = more murders, something Matthias has been campaigning for by using the same "literature" you keep referencing as your "proof".
 
China, the most populated country in the world, has more guns per capita than half of the top 10, yet only Japan has a lower intentional homicide rate with the other 4 countries with fewer guns having 3.4x, 12.2x, 8.1x and 2.7x more intentional homicides per 100k
Yeah, but you forgot to mention a few facts:http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/china1. Most guns in China are not privately owned.2. Private citizens in China are only allowed to own hand-held pistols and non-semi-automatic weapons, and these are highly regulated and restricted.3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
From your link: The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in China is 40,000,000The defence forces of China are reported to have 41,000,0004 to 48,480,0005 firearmsFeel free to break these out for each country in the top 10, I don't think you will magically find a correlation between more guns = more murders.
 
@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Yes, when you don't understand how to run or interpret statistical analyses, it is much more comforting to stick with a flawed set of assumptions because you can never reject the null hypothesis. This is the strength of the gun nut position. Stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, deny reality, and continue the madness all in the name of supporting your hobby and advancing paranoia propaganda.
What is your background with statistics? I have worked with data for over 20 years.Please go ahead and show me your model that supports the discussion at hand.
Neuroscience. Was in academia before, peer reviewed publications, now do consultation work. You? Saying you have worked with data for 20 years could mean anything. The fact that you are unaware of or reject the reams of literature demonstrating the gun ownership:fatality relationship, notwithstanding your sloppy use and misunderstanding of basic statistical language leads me to speculate your working with data has been limited to keeping fantasy football statistics for the past 20 years.
Databases, financial data, and politics, but please continue to be condescending and I look forward to your model showing more guns = more murders, something Matthias has been campaigning for by using the same "literature" you keep referencing as your "proof".
It's less about being condescending as much as it is pointing out the reality of--the absurdity of--your ignorance. You are where good data and informed opinion go to die.
 
Shocking results...top 10 countries by population - no filter needed to skew the results to support my biasTop 10 list of countries listed below represent 58% of the world population

Code:
Pop Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.92		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.23		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.84		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	86		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.67		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.58		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
IHR Rank	Country		Pop		IHR	G1		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	82		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.94		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.55		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.66		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.87		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.28		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.59		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.910		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6
Code:
G Rank		Country		Pop		IHR	G	IHR Rank1		 United States	315,033,000	4.2	88.8	62		 Pakistan	181,646,000	7.8	11.6	53		 Russia		143,300,000	10.2	8.9	34		 Brazil		193,946,886	21	8	15		 China		1,347,350,000	1	4.9	96		 India		1,210,193,422	3.4	4.2	77		 Nigeria	166,629,000	12.2	1.5	28		 Japan		127,520,000	0.4	0.6	109		 Indonesia	237,641,326	8.1	0.5	410		 Bangladesh	152,518,015	2.7	0.5	8
Go ahead and "control" the filters so you can tweak the results to fit your biashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_populationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_ratehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryChina, the most populated country in the world, has more guns per capita than half of the top 10, yet only Japan has a lower intentional homicide rate with the other 4 countries with fewer guns having 3.4x, 12.2x, 8.1x and 2.7x more intentional homicides per 100k
Very well, I agree to institute the exact same gun regulations as China, as per your suggestions.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3. There is no private sales loophole.

Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
LaPierre may be, but maybe not the NRA membership.
"He is so doctrinaire and so adamant that I believe gun owners turn against him as well," Senator Schumer said. That's a debatable point given the NRA's very loyal membership and extraordinary clout on Capitol Hill. Still, some polls show large numbers of NRA members in favor of things like background checks at gun shows.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
:popcorn: So you operate from logic but anyone opposed to you operates from feelings. Good to know. Kinda like the logic that people killing people with guns is a problem so the logical solution would be to arm more people. I wish I could corner the market on logic.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
Certifiable.
 
I guess none of you have read Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard. (Or seen the fine film adaptation.) What was the FIRST THING the Psychlos did after destroying 99% of the human population? Took away all the guns. So don't say that it can't ever happen.
Battlefield Earth swept the 2000 Golden Raspberry Awards and received seven "Razzies", including Worst Movie of the Year, Worst Actor (Travolta), Worst Supporting Actor (Pepper), Worst Supporting Actress (Preston), Worst Director (Christian), Worst Screenplay (Mandell and Shapiro), and Worst Screen Couple (Travolta and "anyone sharing the screen with him").[89][92] This tied for the highest number of Razzies won by a single film at that time, with Showgirls achieving seven wins in 1995
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
:popcorn: So you operate from logic but anyone opposed to you operates from feelings. Good to know. Kinda like the logic that people killing people with guns is a problem so the logical solution would be to arm more people. I wish I could corner the market on logic.
Tim has already said he doesn't know if his ideas would even work. It has been shown that switching mags quickly is a easy skill to acquire. It has been shown that killings with assault weapons (AKA scary looking guns) has actually gone down. It is a well accepted fact that an outright ban will not happen. It has been shown gun violence has decreased. It has been shown that criminals interviewed in prison consider potential victims based on if they are armed. It has been shown that there is absolutely no way to deter a determined evil person. It has been shown that areas with high gun control actually have higher crime. Yet you gun grabbers feel, despite all evidence contrary to reality, infringing on law abiding citizens will lower these events. That's not logic, that's feelings. I actually understand this and would also like these crimes to stop but unless you can stomp out evil these events will continue. the bill of rights guarantees me my right to protecting my family is up to me in how I see fit. You may go with a dog or a security system but when evil kicks in your door that 7 minute police response time is going to feel like an eternity to you. I'll take my chances with my gun.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.
 
3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.
The NRA is fighting this tooth and nail.
The "gunshow loophole" as they call it would require a few things to happen IMO.1st would be to make all private purchases illegal at gunshows(and I mean a guy selling guns at a table that is no FFL holder) and force them to have to go through a FFL holder.It certainly would stop those sales at a gunshow but what's stopping them from just meeting around the corner and doing it that way?Only way that would really work is if every gun had to be registered and I'm not sure if anybody wants to do that right now.2nd would be all out ban of any private sale.So basically you would need a FFL holder(a middleman)to help you with selling the gun and go that route.But how do you enforce this if nobody even knows you have it?So again it points back to a registration of all guns.Am I missing something you had in mind Tim?
I can answer for Tim and all gun grabbers the most important point, it make him(them) feel good. Liberals operate from a feelings position, logic tells us that you are absolutely correct but to a gun grabber it's feelings that matter. There is no will in this country to ban guns so we(the politicians) will do the next best thing which is make our constituents feel better by doing something. Regardless of the fact that it infringes on what it is that makes America the worlds last best hope.
I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.
You've answered your own question in #2. That's the only option. He said as much a few pages back. Never going to happen.
 
Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40
.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88
.
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
More Guns, More CrimeMark DugganUniversity of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic ResearchThis paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the hom- icide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked. Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative to nongun homicides since 1993.Journal of Political Economy, 2001, v.109
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40
.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88
.
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
What specifically are they doing here?
 
Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40
.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88
.
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
What specifically are they doing here?
What do you mean?
 
Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40
.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88
.
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
What specifically are they doing here?
What do you mean?
"after controlling for poverty and urbanization"What does that mean?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top