Homicides lower in countries with lots of guns

[Alyosha]

Someone sent this to me on my facebook I never use, but here are some interesting graphs from the UN office on drugs and crime.

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg


http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg


Consider the source if you may be it checks out if you google it from the UN site.http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership-Low-In-Homicides

[fyrenza]

Guess that folks don't look all that vulnerable with a gun in their hands, eh?

[Alyosha]

No, I'm guessing they don't.

[jillian]

breitbart?

[hanger4]

breitbart?

No, UN

[Agravan]

breitbart?

Well, there goes that discussion. Since the article is from Brietbat, that's the only excuse libs need to disregard it. Hell, if Breitbart came out and said the sky was blue and the sun rises in the East, the left would automatically deny the allegations because of the source.
Our "open-minded" liberals are just soooo tolerant of other ideas.

[Codename Section]

breitbart?
jillian

UN see her first link http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1

that would probably be why she said consider the source and then that it checks out. Besides, I don't see you upset when certain people use Huffpo or MotherJones :D

[Alyosha]

Someone sent me the link from Breitbart then I went to the UN site to check it out or I wouldn't have posted it jillian.

While I don't ascribe to the logical fallacy of a particular source always being wrong, I know that others do which is why I submitted the UN link and said for people to do their own research.

[jillian]

@jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719)

UN see her first link http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1

@Codename Section the homicide rate has gone down radically in NYC. it has nothing to do with gun ownership.

correlation is not causation.

and once breitbart is a link, the tendency is to know that the information is either an outright lie or a distortion…. not on Alyosha's part, but on the site.

that would probably be why she said consider the source and then that it checks out. Besides, I don't see you upset when certain people use Huffpo or MotherJones :D

[countryboy]

Standby, I'm sure jillian is confirming the validity of the report as we speak, and will be along posthaste with an apology.

[jillian]

No, UN

the link is to breitbart.

[countryboy]

Or not.....

Murder rates have gone down in NYC? Source?

[jillian]

Well, there goes that discussion. Since the article is from Brietbat, that's the only excuse libs need to disregard it. Hell, if Breitbart came out and said the sky was blue and the sun rises in the East, the left would automatically deny the allegations because of the source.
Our "open-minded" liberals are just soooo tolerant of other ideas.

there has to be a legitimate source for a discussion. and your idea of a "discussion" is high fiving other righties and hurling insults.

[Agravan]

and once breitbart is a link, the tendency is to know that the information is either an outright lie or a distortion…. not on Alyosha's part, but on the site.

Because jillian can determine the validity of any article just by where it originates from. Breitbart = liars, Huffpo, NYT = Gospel

[jillian]

Standby, I'm sure @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) is confirming the validity of the report as we speak, and will be along posthaste with an apology.

the links to the UN don't have any information regarding gun laws.

the correlation was made by the liars at breitbart.

i'll be waiting for *your* apology.

again, homicide rates have gone down in NY with its fairly strict gun control laws. and in australia and in many other countries with restrictive gun laws.

we'll await your explanation.

thanks in advance.

[Agravan]

there has to be a legitimate source for a discussion. and your idea of a "discussion" is high fiving other righties and hurling insults.
And your idea of discussion is denying anything and everything that contradicts what "you know to be true" even when proven.

[hanger4]

the link is to breitbart.

And Breitbart credits the UN,

from breitbart's link;


Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis.For example, here is the map for gun ownership:


Which Alyosha supplied a link to.

Come on girl get a clue !!

[Alyosha]

the link is to breitbart.
jillian

read more carefully the first link I posted was to the UN

[fyrenza]

Libs don't need no stinkin' research,

and to expect that they'd actually use any sort of valid logic to think these things out, for themselves,

is just a Bit Much.

Thinking and/or logic isn't exactly their Strong Suit...

[Alyosha]

the links to the UN don't have any information regarding gun laws.

the correlation was made by the liars at breitbart.

i'll be waiting for *your* apology.

again, homicide rates have gone down in NY with its fairly strict gun control laws. and in australia and in many other countries with restrictive gun laws.

we'll await your explanation.

thanks in advance.

Thanks in advance for doing the appropriate research which shows both guns and homicides in their data reporting pages. It doesn't show correlation, I posted correlation in the subject title.

Correlation is not causation hence why I didn't say, "Lots of guns lowers crime" in this thread.

But thanks for trying to take the thread off topic with logical fallacies. It would be nice, for once, if you would address a post directly instead of the link or poster. Conversation is why we all come here and you can't have that when you do this.

[Chris]

breitbart?



Now I was expecting ad hom against John Lott mentioned in the article as being proven right, but you didn't even bother to read that far to launch your irellevant ad hom. Pathetic.

[Alyosha]

the link is to breitbart.

I said:

Consider the source if you may be it checks out if you google it from the UN site.http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

When you go to that site you click the link and pull up an Excel spreadsheet. Look at the spreadsheet.

This isn't rocket science. It isn't that hard to look at numbers and go, "OH, that's the homicide rate--oh, that's how many guns".

Sheesh.

[Chris]

the links to the UN don't have any information regarding gun laws.

the correlation was made by the liars at breitbart.

i'll be waiting for *your* apology.

again, homicide rates have gone down in NY with its fairly strict gun control laws. and in australia and in many other countries with restrictive gun laws.

we'll await your explanation.

thanks in advance.


Unbelievable.

BTW,


again, homicide rates have gone down in NY with its fairly strict gun control laws. and in australia and in many other countries with restrictive gun laws.

Where's your evidence. Please provide both gun ownership and crime rates.

[jillian]

Or not.....

Murder rates have gone down in NYC? Source?

http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-york-city-murder-rate_n_4002712.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

you really should know basic things about the world you live in.

[jillian]

Now I was expecting ad hom against John Lott mentioned in the article as being proven right, but you didn't even bother to read that far to launch your irellevant ad hom. Pathetic.

prove breitbart isn't a bunch of lying scum.

keep on posting ad homs and trolls though. we're used to it from you.

[zelmo1234]

there has to be a legitimate source for a discussion. and your idea of a "discussion" is high fiving other righties and hurling insults.

Please Note that the Huffington post, MSNBC, NBC, and any other liberal site will no longer be considered Legitimate!

You sources will have to be backed up by a Conservative Approved Site, even if the Government or the UN or God him Self Stands behind it!

[Alyosha]

http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-york-city-murder-rate_n_4002712.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

you really should know basic things about the world you live in.

Ah-ah-ah...you're the one against "rags". Post from the Washington Post, BBC, or New York Times, please.

[zelmo1234]

the links to the UN don't have any information regarding gun laws.

the correlation was made by the liars at breitbart.

i'll be waiting for *your* apology.

again, homicide rates have gone down in NY with its fairly strict gun control laws. and in australia and in many other countries with restrictive gun laws.

we'll await your explanation.

thanks in advance.

Well thus ends that discussion a Liberal has spoken!!!!! So let it be written, so let it be Done!

[jillian]

And Breitbart credits the UN,

from breitbart's link;



Which Alyosha supplied a link to.

Come on girl get a clue !!

breitbart distorts fact and finds causation where there is only correlation.

it cites the UN but gives no information on the gun laws in those countries.

now explain why gun violence is down in NY and australia and most other places where there isn't a wild west, survivalist gun culture

[Chris]

prove breitbart isn't a bunch of lying scum.

keep on posting ad homs and trolls though. we're used to it from you.



You're the one making the accusations, jillian, the burden of proof is on you.

No one is posting ad homs but you, and half a dozen others have called you on it.

[Alyosha]

prove breitbart isn't a bunch of lying scum.

keep on posting ad homs and trolls though. we're used to it from you.
jillian

please stop going off topic. I posted "Breitbart" ONLY because I was crediting where I first received the link from. I then went to the UN and did my own reports which you could do, hence why it was the first link I provided.

Either go to the UN site and become acquainted on the topic or stop talking in this thread in bad faith.

The point is the numbers and that the UN shows that homicides are lower in areas with more guns. Do you dispute the figures on the UN website? Is that why you're posting in this thread? because if it is about Breitbart, I'll remove that link and leave up the UN one.

[zelmo1234]

Thanks in advance for doing the appropriate research which shows both guns and homicides in their data reporting pages. It doesn't show correlation, I posted correlation in the subject title.

Correlation is not causation hence why I didn't say, "Lots of guns lowers crime" in this thread.

But thanks for trying to take the thread off topic with logical fallacies. It would be nice, for once, if you would address a post directly instead of the link or poster. Conversation is why we all come here and you can't have that when you do this.

She is never going to do that because the truth works against everything that they are trying to do!

Liberals have little to no truth in them and if they tell a lie, that becomes their truth.

You can't have a discussion with that, and what we call that here is posting in good faith! for some reason!

[Alyosha]

breitbart distorts fact and finds causation where there is only correlation.

it cites the UN but gives no information on the gun laws in those countries.

now explain why gun violence is down in NY and australia and most other places where there isn't a wild west, survivalist gun culture

The topic isn't Breitbart, jillian And he's dead, ergo he's not "lying scum". The topic is the UN numbers and regardless of the "laws" of those nations, the numbers stand and are interesting.

SO...back on topic,

are you saying it is our anti-murder laws, not guns that prevent homicides in the US?

[Chris]

http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-york-city-murder-rate_n_4002712.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

you really should know basic things about the world you live in.



OK, that's half the story, jillian. Crimes rates dropping in NYC. But the topic is crime rate and gun ownership. You still got some research to do to substantiate your counter claim.

[Paperback Writer]

NYC had "Stop and Frisk" which drove down crime rates.

[fyrenza]

What IS it?

WHY are the trolls fed?

If no one has noticed? It's an exercise in futility,
and it forces the cream to sink to the level of the boxes of rocks ...

NO ONE walks away from these skirmishes looking shiny and clean.

Just saying.

[Chris]

OK, that's half the story, jillian. Crimes rates dropping in NYC. But the topic is crime rate and gun ownership. You still got some research to do to substantiate your counter claim.

Your argument, jillian, is refuted by the following--which, incidentally, supports the contention of the OP, more guns and less crime.


Want A Gun? Move To New York City (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/20/1249008/-Want-A-Gun-Move-To-New-York-City#)


If you follow the gun debate at all, you're aware of the fact that Mike Bloomberg, the soon-to-be ex-Mayor of New York City, takes credit for a steep decline in the city's crime rate due to his strict enforcement of the city's tough gun laws. But while this may mean that very few city residents own legal guns, research published by Gary Kleck (UCLA Law Review, #56, 2009) indicates that within another few years, the number of illegal guns may exceed the number of adults living within the city. Imagine that! The city with the toughest gun laws will also be home to the largest number of guns. How is that possible?

...Kleck bases his calculations on the idea that per capita American handgun ownership is .0325 (one-third of a gun for every person.) But those numbers have changed. In fact, since the 1980s, handguns have entered the market over long guns by a ratio of two to one. So the per capita ownership of handguns is probably now close to 0.50. This being the case, if we follow Kleck's logic to its ultimate conclusion, the continued migration of people into New York City from 2000 until 2013 means that at least 400,000 new handguns have come into town during the same period. Add this to the 2 million guns that NYPD believe were in the city in 1980, then tack on another 30,000 each year between 1981 and 2000, and we are up to 3 million guns....

[fyrenza]

NYC had "Stop and Frisk" which drove down crime rates.

O.M.G.!!!

Prepare for Incoming ...

"racist" accusations,

because the ONLY reason anyone would target the infected area would be because they were RACISTS!

[countryboy]

http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-york-city-murder-rate_n_4002712.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

you really should know basic things about the world you live in.
Huffpo? NYP?

See what I did there? :wink:

[bladimz]

She is never going to do that because the truth works against everything that they are trying to do!

Liberals have little to no truth in them and if they tell a lie, that becomes their truth.

You can't have a discussion with that, and what we call that here is posting in good faith! for some reason!Not to be disruptive, but you only need to replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives", and suddenly it looks as though no one is posting in good faith.

Piling on is a very unattractive way to advance a thread and it's topic.

[bladimz]

OK, that's half the story, jillian. Crimes rates dropping in NYC. But the topic is crime rate and gun ownership. You still got some research to do to substantiate your counter claim.Is the topic crime rate and gun ownership, or homicide rates and gun ownership?

[bladimz]

The whole thing is a maze of stats, collection of data, manipulation of data with a resulting conclusion. For instance, this item can paint a different picture:


States With More Gun Owners Have More Gun-Related Murders: Study

THURSDAY, Sept. 12 (HealthDay News) -- The more gun owners in a state, the higher its rate of gun-related murders, according to a new study.

The findings appear to challenge the National Rifle Association's claim that higher levels of gun ownership do not lead to increased gun violence.

Researchers analyzed data collected in all 50 states between 1981 and 2010 and found a "robust correlation" between estimated levels of gun ownership and gun-related murders at the state level, according to the study, which was published online Sept. 12 in the American Journal of Public Health.

After controlling for other factors associated with murders, the researchers concluded that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 0.9 percent increase in a state's gun-related murders.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2013/09/12/states-with-more-gun-owners-have-more-gun-related-murders-studyNow this doesn't argue the point made in the OP, but it does challenge the run-of-the-mill thinking that the more guns, the safer we are.

[Peter1469]

The whole thing is a maze of stats, collection of data, manipulation of data with a resulting conclusion. For instance, this item can paint a different picture:

Now this doesn't argue the point made in the OP, but it does challenge the run-of-the-mill thinking that the more guns, the safer we are.

In that study, does gun owner mean legal gun owner?

[Adelaide]

Eliminating guns doesn't eliminate firearm-related crimes. Canadians have a crapload of guns but strict laws about who/how you can own a firearm (mandatory training and licensing), what kind of firearms can be owned, how you can store a firearm, how to transport a firearm, where you can use a firearm, etc.. Our homicide rate was going down before these restrictions went into place. Pretty tough to decide whether the laws had much of an effect on that.

The laws are very handy at getting criminals to take plea deals and turn on others. Any criminal caught with a firearm up here faces like 7 additional charges for illegal possession/storage/transportation/etc of a firearm. It's actually kind of comical. You'll read in the newspaper about someone who committed a physical assault with a deadly weapon, and there is a massive list of other charges related to merely holding a firearm or having one in their vehicle. Criminals who bring guns with them to commit crimes are complete idiots.

[bladimz]

In that study, does gun owner mean legal gun owner?I would assume so. How realistic is it to expect statistical information on illegal gun owners? How can that be collected?

[Agravan]

I would assume so. How realistic is it to expect statistical information on illegal gun owners? How can that be collected?
As liberal pollster are wont to do: assumption.

[Chris]

Is the topic crime rate and gun ownership, or homicide rates and gun ownership?

Either one includes gun ownership, lad, which was my point, glad to see you got it. More precisely falling crime rate and rising gun ownership.

[Chris]

The whole thing is a maze of stats, collection of data, manipulation of data with a resulting conclusion. For instance, this item can paint a different picture:

Now this doesn't argue the point made in the OP, but it does challenge the run-of-the-mill thinking that the more guns, the safer we are.



It's at least on topic and not mere off-topic ad hom smear. Not sure who you think is arguing a causal relationship, not even your source does that: 'found a "robust correlation" between estimated levels of gun ownership and gun-related murders at the state level...."

From your source: "After controlling for other factors associated with murders, the researchers concluded that for each 1 percent increase in gun ownership, there was a 0.9 percent increase in a state's gun-related murders." It would be good to know what the other factors are and how they were controlled for.

More: "The findings are consistent with previous studies that found an association between higher levels of gun ownership and higher gun-related murder rates, the researchers said." Yet we know from the OP that these finds are inconsistent with studies that find the opposite. Why is that not stated?

Finally: "A positive finding emerged: The average gun-related murder rate for all states fell from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in 2010." Given that gun ownership is on the rise, this positive finding is consistent with the OP's findings.

[Chris]

bladimz, here is a less biased account of the study. Bias? Yes, your source stated its bias in its concluding paragraph: "You can learn more about preventing gun violence at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence."

So here's the other account: MORE SHOOTING DEATHS IN STATES WITH MORE GUN OWNERS (http://www.futurity.org/shooting-deaths-states-gun-owners/). It reports not only the prediction the researchers hypothesized but the source of data and the factors they controlled for--none of which your source did.

Let's start with data: "State levels of gun ownership were estimated using a well-established proxy variable: the percentage of a state’s suicides that are committed with a firearm (FS/S)." IOW, no data, not only did they not factor in legal vs illegal, they didn't factor in any gun ownership data.

Next, the factors they controlled for--iow, eliminated: "The researchers used regression analysis to examine the relationship between state levels of gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, while controlling for a range of potential state-level confounding variables, including: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted non-firearm homicide rate, incarceration rate, and suicide rate." In short, they've removed reality from the picture.

That brings into question then not only their data but their methods.

But here's the kicker. They predicted this: "The regression model predicted that each 1 percentage point increase in gun ownership increases a state’s firearm homicide rate by 0.9 percent, translating into a 12.9 percent increase in the gun homicide rate for each one standard deviation increase in gun ownership." --Keep in mind your source claimed they found that. No, that was what they hypothesized.

In fact, the study falsified the prediction: "Siegel notes that the study did not determine causation, allowing that it is theoretically possible that people are more likely to purchase guns if they live in states with higher levels of firearm homicide. But he says the issue warrants further study." IOW, the opposite could be just as true.

[roadmaster]

I wouldn't want to live in a country where the police and illegal gun owners were the only ones who had them. Reminds he of Hitler.

[Mr Happy]

Someone sent this to me on my facebook I never use, but here are some interesting graphs from the UN office on drugs and crime.

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg


http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg


Consider the source if you may be it checks out if you google it from the UN site.http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership-Low-In-Homicides


I think your header is misleading...

[zelmo1234]

http://gothamist.com/2013/11/03/nyc_on_pace_in_2013_for_least_amoun.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/new-york-city-murder-rate_n_4002712.html

http://nypost.com/2013/10/27/nothing-rivals-nycs-crime-drop/

you really should know basic things about the world you live in.

Huffington post and NY post are not reliable sources, they are left wing propaganda machines.

got anything credible

[zelmo1234]

Not to be disruptive, but you only need to replace the word "liberals" with "conservatives", and suddenly it looks as though no one is posting in good faith.

Piling on is a very unattractive way to advance a thread and it's topic.

Accept if conservatives tried that shit the would be sent to the hole, you know it and I know it! and everyone her knows it,

Liberals get a pass!

[zelmo1234]

The whole thing is a maze of stats, collection of data, manipulation of data with a resulting conclusion. For instance, this item can paint a different picture:

Now this doesn't argue the point made in the OP, but it does challenge the run-of-the-mill thinking that the more guns, the safer we are.

It also happens to be a play on numbers. and Mississippi has a fairly low number of Gun murders, but has a really low population.

Then if you take the numbers of cities like Chicago and consider that NO one is to own a handgun, it would show your post to be left wing propaganda

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

[Codename Section]

The whole thing is a maze of stats, collection of data, manipulation of data with a resulting conclusion. For instance, this item can paint a different picture:

Now this doesn't argue the point made in the OP, but it does challenge the run-of-the-mill thinking that the more guns, the safer we are.

Yes, but that's for different reasons than "gun ownership":

Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Illinois and Michigan have the highest gun/murder rates. This is also the midwest drug running route into Canada.

[bladimz]

Accept if conservatives tried that shit the would be sent to the hole, you know it and I know it! and everyone her knows it,

Liberals get a pass!Whatever you say...

[bladimz]

Yes, but that's for different reasons than "gun ownership":

Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Illinois and Michigan have the highest gun/murder rates. This is also the midwest drug running route into Canada.Maybe, could be. But that doesn't negate their findings. People can elicit 100 different reasons why the study is failed. A few have already been offered here. I haven't done the study, and neither has anyone else here, as far as i know.

Some people just like to blow it off as left-wing nonsense. That's their right; just as it is mine to dismiss the OP's information. I don't find Breitbart fair and balanced. I would call them a cheerleader for the right wing. So i'm not going to trust any of their articles. Even the ones that use UN stats as a reference. Remember that the UN is either yea'd or nay'd depending on their stand on an issue. Breitbart used their info this time because their findings happened to jive with "B"'s right-wing ideology.

[bladimz]

It also happens to be a play on numbers. and Mississippi has a fairly low number of Gun murders, but has a really low population.

Then if you take the numbers of cities like Chicago and consider that NO one is to own a handgun, it would show your post to be left wing propaganda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_statePssst... your wiki source references only murders, not gun violence.

[bladimz]

As liberal pollster are wont to do: assumption.So how would you answer Peter's question? Or would you just ignore it.

[Chris]

Maybe, could be. But that doesn't negate their findings. People can elicit 100 different reasons why the study is failed. A few have already been offered here. I haven't done the study, and neither has anyone else here, as far as i know.

Some people just like to blow it off as left-wing nonsense. That's their right; just as it is mine to dismiss the OP's information. I don't find Breitbart fair and balanced. I would call them a cheerleader for the right wing. So i'm not going to trust any of their articles. Even the ones that use UN stats as a reference. Remember that the UN is either yea'd or nay'd depending on their stand on an issue. Breitbart used their info this time because their findings happened to jive with "B"'s right-wing ideology.



The authors of the study you found, blad, admitted their predictions were not supported.


Do you have any basis whatsoever to dismiss the OP? Any? You've offered none.

[bladimz]

How do you "support a prediction"?

[Chris]

How do you "support a prediction"?



Is that a serious question? Are you saying you understand nothing of science and scientific method? No wonder you think your suspicions are enough to counter the OP and wishful thinking enough to support your study.


Science makes hypothetical predictions of the world around us, then collects observations or conducts experiments to either support the hypothesis or falsify it. In the study you found the researchers made a prediction of correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates, then, besides questionable methods, as I pointed out earlier, the researchers themselves announced their findings did not support their hypothesis.

The source you found misreported that.

[Mr Happy]

Do you have any basis whatsoever to dismiss the OP? Any? You've offered none.

Depends on the purpose of the Op Ed...

[Codename Section]

Depends on the purpose of the Op Ed...

And if the purpose is to show that homicides are lower in countries with lots of guns...?

[Chris]

Depends on the purpose of the Op Ed...

To you, perhaps, you can join jillian in ad hom and blad in wishful thinking. I prefer facts and logic.

[Chris]

And if the purpose is to show that homicides are lower in countries with lots of guns...?

Might go against someone's agenda, therefore....

[Mr Happy]

And if the purpose is to show that homicides are lower in countries with lots of guns...?

I would say the Op Ed is wrong...

[Mr Happy]

To you, perhaps, you can join jillian in ad hom and blad in wishful thinking. I prefer facts and logic.

Who am I ad homing? I prefer facts, too...

[The Sage of Main Street]

Someone sent this to me on my facebook I never use, but here are some interesting graphs from the UN office on drugs and crime.

http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/BF66253EEC794232919224A875EB3172.jpg


http://www.breitbart.com/mediaserver/3C9D2D72AA9B4221861276B897DF0CBA.jpg


Consider the source if you may be it checks out if you google it from the UN site.http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/12/U-N-Maps-Show-U-S-High-In-Gun-Ownership-Low-In-Homicides

If there are too many "wannabe cops," there'll be a shortage of wannabe criminals.

[Paperback Writer]

I would say the Op Ed is wrong...

So you disagree with the UN? It's their reports.

[Chris]

I would say the Op Ed is wrong...


Who am I ad homing? I prefer facts, too...



OK, good, so what facts are you citing to counter the OP?

[Mr Happy]

So you disagree with the UN? It's their reports.

It is not the UN saying homicides are lower in countries with lots of the guns (the point of the Op-Ed). It is Alyosha (at least I think that is her contention, thus my query in post 63.) If you look at the map the number of intentional homicides in Australia and New Zealand is low as is gun ownership. Ditto your country (the UK) and Portugal, too. Therefore, homicides are lower in countries with a low number of guns?

[fyrenza]

Doesn't seem like the libs "trust" any source that disagrees with their talking head's opinions ...

[Paperback Writer]

It is not the UN saying homicides are lower in countries with lots of the guns (the point of the Op-Ed). It is Alyosha (at least I think that is her contention, thus my query in post 63.) If you look at the map the number of intentional homicides in Australia and New Zealand is low as is gun ownership. Ditto your country (the UK) and Portugal, too. Therefore, homicides are lower in countries with a low number of guns?

It is the UN's data. Really, there is no excuse for not following the first link and doing the reports if you wish to comment on the thread. The data is in two separate reports. A report on homicides and a report on guns.

Follow the first link and you can create your own MS Excel reports.

[Mr Happy]

I would say the Op Ed is wrong...




http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mr Happy http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=441006#post441006)
Who am I ad homing? I prefer facts, too...





OK, good, so what facts are you citing to counter the OP?

I would suggest you look up what an ad hom is:

ad ho·mi·nem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason).
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

How is me saying the op-ed is wrong attacking somebody's character or appealing to prejudices or emotions??

[Paperback Writer]

Gerrard Winstanley and I should not have to carry the intellectual weight of Commonwealth nations.

[Paperback Writer]

I would suggest you look up what an ad hom is:


I would suggest you do the research prior to saying someone pulled data out their arse.

[Mr Happy]

I would suggest you do the research prior to saying someone pulled data out their arse.

I never said she pulled the data out of her arse..

[Mr Happy]

@Gerrard Winstanley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=864) and I should not have to carry the intellectual weight of Commonwealth nations.

And I shouldn't have to pick up the lack of intelligence shown by those from the Mother Country...

You sound like a Sunderland supporter...

[Mr Happy]

It is the UN's data. Really, there is no excuse for not following the first link and doing the reports if you wish to comment on the thread. The data is in two separate reports. A report on homicides and a report on guns.

Follow the first link and you can create your own MS Excel reports.

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere. What it is I am not too sure. I was comparing the maps that she put up in the op-ed. Nothing more. Nothing less. I have also looked at the report that is a link within her link (115+ pages). Have you?

[Paperback Writer]

I never said she pulled the data out of her arse..

What are you saying then? Let me guess, some sort of theory about islands on the backside of beyond's methodology of keeping guns out being a success.

Give me an argument about gun control that would make sense for nations who aren't forgotten about until someone needs a winter holiday. You know, tell us a gun control theory that applies to those nations producing guns who also have bleeding borders with states run by drug cartels.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm sure there is a point in there somewhere. What it is I am not too sure. I was comparing the maps that she put up in the op-ed. Nothing more. Nothing less. I have also looked at the report that is a link within her link (115+ pages). Have you?

I've pulled up multiple reports from that website, yes. Dig around a bit. Not like you have fuck all else to do.

Unlike me who needs to get back to my adoring mates. :D

[Mr Happy]

What are you saying then? Let me guess, some sort of theory about islands on the backside of beyond's methodology of keeping guns out being a success.

Give me an argument about gun control that would make sense for nations who aren't forgotten about until someone needs a winter holiday. You know, tell us a gun control theory that applies to those nations producing guns who also have bleeding borders with states run by drug cartels.

Why would I argue that when that is not my contention. My only point was that the Op-Ed is not necessarily true due to the own data supplied on the maps in the first post. Anything else is your own contention, not mine. Where have I even hinted that gun control makes sense under the circumstances you have stated? Or that I am even advocating that?

[Chris]

I would suggest you look up what an ad hom is:

ad ho·mi·nem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason).
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

How is me saying the op-ed is wrong attacking somebody's character or appealing to prejudices or emotions??


Ah, good, happy has found a diversion from arguing the OP.


So you've provided so far seat of the pants estimates for a few countries as opposed to, as paper points out, UN data. What's the source of your data?


My only point was that the Op-Ed is not necessarily true due to the own data supplied on the maps in the first post.

You will need to demonstrate the UN data wrong. "Is not necessarily true" is mere suspicion. I thought you prefered facts and logic?

[Mr Happy]

Ah, good, happy has found a diversion from arguing the OP.

So you've provided so far seat of the pants estimates for a few countries as opposed to, as paper points out, US data. What's the source of your data?

Is that first sentence you saying you were wrong?

Um, I haven't provided any estimates. I'm just looking at the two maps in the op-ed. Are they wrong? You do know how to read the maps right? What the colours mean etc??

[Mr Happy]

You will need to demonstrate the UN data wrong. "Is not necessarily true" is mere suspicion. I thought you prefered facts and logic?

See my last about reading map colours...It is there in 'black and white'...well, green and brown and red and ...

[Chris]

It is not the UN saying homicides are lower in countries with lots of the guns (the point of the Op-Ed). It is Alyosha (at least I think that is her contention, thus my query in post 63.) If you look at the map the number of intentional homicides in Australia and New Zealand is low as is gun ownership. Ditto your country (the UK) and Portugal, too. Therefore, homicides are lower in countries with a low number of guns?

Here's your estimates, a few countries, cherry picked to draw a conclusion. Not logical.

[Mr Happy]

Here's your estimates, a few countries, cherry picked to draw a conclusion. Not logical.

And Alyosha hasn't done that? And I wasn't drawing any conclusion. I was asking a question (see question mark at the end of the last sentence in post 72 - you know the point of a question mark, right?)

[Chris]

And Alyosha hasn't done that? And I wasn't drawing any conclusion. I was asking a question (see question mark at the end of the last sentence in post 72 - you know the point of a question mark, right?)

No, she's looking at a world of data, not cherry picking tails in a normal curve. The tendency, by global data from the UN, is for homicide rates to be lower in countries with high gun ownership rates. Of course because it's not black and white, with many other variables to consider, it's a tendency, a statistical correlation, with expected deviancy and outliers.

[Mr Happy]

No, she's looking at a world of data, not cherry picking tails in a normal curve. The tendency, by global data from the UN, is for homicide rates to be lower in countries with high gun ownership rates. Of course because it's not black and white, with many other variables to consider, it's a tendency, a statistical correlation, with expected deviancy and outliers.

Yes, I agree...to a point.

[Codename Section]

Why would I argue that when that is not my contention. My only point was that the Op-Ed is not necessarily true due to the own data supplied on the maps in the first post. Anything else is your own contention, not mine. Where have I even hinted that gun control makes sense under the circumstances you have stated? Or that I am even advocating that?

What's not true about the maps? They match up. Do you not like the color scheme--sorry, "colours"? :D

[Chris]

Yes, I agree...to a point.

OK. Your observations aren't wrong, they point out the correlation isn't absolute. And, yes, there are so many factors to consider. Blad posted a study earlier and that was one of my criticisms of it @ http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19475-Homicides-lower-in-countries-with-lots-of-guns?p=440626&viewfull=1#post440626:


Next, the factors they controlled for--iow, eliminated: "The researchers used regression analysis to examine the relationship between state levels of gun ownership and firearm homicide rates, while controlling for a range of potential state-level confounding variables, including: age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted non-firearm homicide rate, incarceration rate, and suicide rate." In short, they've removed reality from the picture.

[Mr Happy]

My main interest is the Asian and African countries and how they collected their stats. For example, most of those continents show low gun ownership and high homicide rates. Included in the low gun ownership rates are Somalia, Eritrea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo, Nigeria, both Congos, Rwanda and Burundi plus more. Anybody who knows anything about those places know they are awash with firearms so I am not surprised that they have high homicide rates. Yet the stats presented belie that notion. So how do I prove those stats wrong? I ask how the data was collected. I doubt that UN workers went door knocking on the rebel shack doors in Eastern Congo asking how many guns they have. I also doubt Russia/China [Insert dodgy firearm manufacturer here] supplied the data.

[Ravi]

Here's a chart for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

[Mr Happy]

Here's a chart for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

While I agree it is high, the chart is kinda wonky. When you look at it, it looks like the US is huge, until you realise it is per 100,000 and that the number on the left-hand side goes up in .5 increments...

[Chris]

While I agree it is high, the chart is kinda wonky. When you look at it, it looks like the US is huge, until you realise it is per 100,000 and that the number on the left-hand side goes up in .5 increments...

Good catch. It's also only half the topic as it doesn't try to correlate homicides with gun ownership.

[Chris]

My main interest is the Asian and African countries and how they collected their stats. For example, most of those continents show low gun ownership and high homicide rates. Included in the low gun ownership rates are Somalia, Eritrea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo, Nigeria, both Congos, Rwanda and Burundi plus more. Anybody who knows anything about those places know they are awash with firearms so I am not surprised that they have high homicide rates. Yet the stats presented belie that notion. So how do I prove those stats wrong? I ask how the data was collected. I doubt that UN workers went door knocking on the rebel shack doors in Eastern Congo asking how many guns they have. I also doubt Russia/China [Insert dodgy firearm manufacturer here] supplied the data.


You'd have to follow the UN link in the OP to find that I suppose.

[Codename Section]

Here's a chart for you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/


Did they compare it to stabbings in the known world? :)

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/teenage-murder-london.html


People just want to kill other people I guess.

[Mister D]

Gun deaths are shaped by race in America. Whites are far more likely to shoot themselves, and African Americans are far more likely to be shot by someone else. The statistical difference is dramatic, according to a Washington Post analysis of data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A white person is five times as likely to commit suicide with a gun as to be shot with a gun; for each African American who uses a gun to commit suicide, five are killed by other people with guns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

You're discussing the wrong topic.

[Mister D]

4754

[Mr Happy]

You'd have to follow the UN link in the OP to find that I suppose.

They gather the stats two ways according to the survey - via criminal justice stats and public health stats. It appears the former is mainly used for western countries and the latter for third world countries. I would suggest they wouldn't be that accurate in the latter case...

[Mister D]

There does appear to be strong correlation between fewer gun restrictions and higher suicide rates.

[Chris]

They gather the stats two ways according to the survey - via criminal justice stats and public health stats. It appears the former is mainly used for western countries and the latter for third world countries. I would suggest they wouldn't be that accurate in the latter case...

That is another aspect of the study blad found that failed, they estimated gun ownership by proxy with suicide rates.

[Mr Happy]

That is another aspect of the study blad found that failed, they estimated gun ownership by proxy with suicide rates.

Really? What an awful way to gather stats...

[Toro]

Comparisons for the United States should be made to other wealthy countries. If one looks at murder rates in the Western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - the rich world - as shown in the UN data, no country comes close to that of the US.

[Toro]

Did they compare it to stabbings in the known world? :)

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/teenage-murder-london.html


People just want to kill other people I guess.

The UN data is "intentional homicide." If you eyeball the data, you see a similar relationship.

[Mr Happy]

Comparisons for the United States should be made to other wealthy countries. If one looks at murder rates in the Western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - the rich world - as shown in the UN data, no country comes close to that of the US.

B-b-b-but they have guns to protect themselves....

[Mister D]

B-b-b-but they have guns to protect themselves....

B-b-b black males commit a majority of gun related homicides. :smiley:

[Mr Happy]

I know. Wonder what the stats say.. Does the US collect such stats using ethnicity?

[Mister D]

Yes, actually. We are one of the few that does.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/19475-Homicides-lower-in-countries-with-lots-of-guns?p=441060&viewfull=1#post441060

[Ravi]

Comparisons for the United States should be made to other wealthy countries. If one looks at murder rates in the Western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - the rich world - as shown in the UN data, no country comes close to that of the US.That was my thought.

[Ethereal]

The vast majority of violent gun crime in the US happens in Democratically controlled municipalities like Camden, Detroit, and Chicago. Democrats should clean up their own back yard and stop worrying about the rest of us.

[Mister D]

The vast majority of violent gun crime in the US happens in Democratically controlled municipalities like Camden, Detroit, and Chicago. Democrats should clean up their own back yard and stop worrying about the rest of us.


It's not really matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's a matter of demographics. That is, it's a matter of acknowledging that the US would have murder rate like that of France if it wasn't "diverse".

[Mr Happy]

It's not really matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's a matter of demographics. That is, it's a matter of acknowledging that the US would have murder rate like that of France if it wasn't "diverse".

I think that is an over simplification of the situation...

[Ravi]

Not to mention that France is very diverse.

[junie]

I know. Wonder what the stats say.. Does the US collect such stats using ethnicity?



this article has good info with links to several reliable sources...


The Geography of U.S. Gun Violencehttp://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

[junie]

B-b-b black males commit a majority of gun related homicides. :smiley:



it's about poverty, not ethnicity...


"My colleagues and I did, however, find gun deaths to be higher in states with higher levels of poverty and lower incomes, as well as in red states and those with more blue-collar working class economies. Conversely, we found gun deaths to be less likely in states with more college graduates and stronger knowledge-based economies.

With the help of my colleague, Charlotta Mellander, we did a similar analysis of the metro level data. Mellander ran a basic correlation analysis across the three measures of gun-related deaths and a variety of economic, demographic, and social characteristics of metros. We were unable to do a similar analysis at the city level due to missing data on gun-related deaths and and the lack of readily-accessible matching data for key economic and social variables. As usual, I point out that correlation does not equal causation."

[junie]

" The importance of gun control cannot be minimized. The state level is the appropriate level to examine this. And our previous state level analysis found gun deaths to be significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.

Moroz is right to point out that a nuanced analysis of gun violence in America requires a careful accounting for the socio-economic factors that come into play at different geographic scales. Still, the consistency of our findings across metro and state levels strongly suggest that gun violence is not just the product of troubled or deranged individuals, as is commonly portrayed, but is both associated with and embedded within the economic and social context of places.

Whether looking at the state or metro level, we find strikingly consistent associations between gun violence and key markers of socio-economic disadvantage — poverty, income, education, class, and race. Of course, center cities bear the heaviest concentrations of such socio-economic disadvantage and we are likely to find even stronger associations and more magnified patterns there, as Moroz does for unemployment.



Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start. "

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

[Mister D]

it's about poverty, not ethnicity...


"My colleagues and I did, however, find gun deaths to be higher in states with higher levels of poverty and lower incomes, as well as in red states and those with more blue-collar working class economies. Conversely, we found gun deaths to be less likely in states with more college graduates and stronger knowledge-based economies.

With the help of my colleague, Charlotta Mellander, we did a similar analysis of the metro level data. Mellander ran a basic correlation analysis across the three measures of gun-related deaths and a variety of economic, demographic, and social characteristics of metros. We were unable to do a similar analysis at the city level due to missing data on gun-related deaths and and the lack of readily-accessible matching data for key economic and social variables. As usual, I point out that correlation does not equal causation."

black males commit a majority of gun related homicides. You can argue all you want about the cause. At least then you'll be addressing a real problem and not a made up problem (i.e. gun ownership).

[Codename Section]

it's about poverty, not ethnicity...


Like Ethereal said, the Democrats should start examining their policies then in their urban centers like Chicago, fix that, then be a light to the rest of the country.

[Mister D]

" The importance of gun control cannot be minimized. The state level is the appropriate level to examine this. And our previous state level analysis found gun deaths to be significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.

Moroz is right to point out that a nuanced analysis of gun violence in America requires a careful accounting for the socio-economic factors that come into play at different geographic scales. Still, the consistency of our findings across metro and state levels strongly suggest that gun violence is not just the product of troubled or deranged individuals, as is commonly portrayed, but is both associated with and embedded within the economic and social context of places.

Whether looking at the state or metro level, we find strikingly consistent associations between gun violence and key markers of socio-economic disadvantage — poverty, income, education, class, and race. Of course, center cities bear the heaviest concentrations of such socio-economic disadvantage and we are likely to find even stronger associations and more magnified patterns there, as Moroz does for unemployment.



Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start. "

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

Aside from the progressive douchebags who exploit school shootings and the like who portrays it that way?

[Chris]

" The importance of gun control cannot be minimized. The state level is the appropriate level to examine this. And our previous state level analysis found gun deaths to be significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns.

Moroz is right to point out that a nuanced analysis of gun violence in America requires a careful accounting for the socio-economic factors that come into play at different geographic scales. Still, the consistency of our findings across metro and state levels strongly suggest that gun violence is not just the product of troubled or deranged individuals, as is commonly portrayed, but is both associated with and embedded within the economic and social context of places.

Whether looking at the state or metro level, we find strikingly consistent associations between gun violence and key markers of socio-economic disadvantage — poverty, income, education, class, and race. Of course, center cities bear the heaviest concentrations of such socio-economic disadvantage and we are likely to find even stronger associations and more magnified patterns there, as Moroz does for unemployment.



Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start. "

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/



Problem with that data is it does not correlate to gun ownership. It basically says, oh my, lots of gun-related violence, got to control guns!! It looks at causes, demographics, poverty, population density, etc, then ignores all that for the obvious agenda: "but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start."

[junie]

black males commit a majority of gun related homicides.

You can argue all you want about the cause.

At least then you'll be addressing a real problem and not a made up problem (i.e. gun ownership).



murder by gun is a real problem. blaming skin color would be a 'made-up problem'.

[junie]

Like Ethereal said, the Democrats should start examining their policies then in their urban centers like Chicago, fix that, then be a light to the rest of the country.


playing partisan politics is a tad simplistic, don't you think?



" The first map above shows the overall rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people by metro. The rates vary substantially from a high of 32.8 in New Orleans to a low of 3.6 in Boston. Birmingham has the second highest rate with 20.5, followed by Memphis with 19.8. Las Vegas (17.6) and Jacksonville (17.5) round out the top five metro rates. After Boston, the metros with the lowest rates include San Jose (3.8), followed by Providence (4.1), New York (4.8), and Hartford (4.8). "

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

[zelmo1234]

playing partisan politics is a tad simplistic, don't you think?



" The first map above shows the overall rate of gun-related deaths per 100,000 people by metro. The rates vary substantially from a high of 32.8 in New Orleans to a low of 3.6 in Boston. Birmingham has the second highest rate with 20.5, followed by Memphis with 19.8. Las Vegas (17.6) and Jacksonville (17.5) round out the top five metro rates. After Boston, the metros with the lowest rates include San Jose (3.8), followed by Providence (4.1), New York (4.8), and Hartford (4.8). "

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/


The problem with the map is that it is old data 2006 - 2007, it is before the new laws of Chicago and DC and before the new concealed carry laws in MI which dropped Detroit and flint out of the murder capitals of the USA

[Chris]

murder by gun is a real problem. blaming skin color would be a 'made-up problem'.



Murder is the problem, violence is the problem. Or are murder and violence symptoms of another problem?


By the OP, which still stands, no one has falsified, guns in the hands of private citizens could well be a solution.

[Mister D]

murder by gun is a real problem. blaming skin color would be a 'made-up problem'.

I'd say no one is blaming skin color but I'm not even sure what that means.

[Codename Section]

playing partisan politics is a tad simplistic, don't you think?





No. New Orleans is a blue city, Chicago is a blue city, Washington DC is a blue city and New York's solution was "Stop and Frisk". I'm sure if you want to go around to all those cities and hit up poor people--black people--and shake their asses down you'd lower gun violence as well.

It's that's the type of place you want to live in, that is.

[Codename Section]

The graph...

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/12/01/gunmap.png

Basically proves it's not folks in rural Amerrrika who love their guns that are shooting up the place.

[Chris]

The graph...

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/12/01/gunmap.png

Basically proves it's not folks in rural Amerrrika who love their guns that are shooting up the place.


The green and yellow areas in Texas are the liberal cities of the states. You might be on to something there.

[junie]

I'd say no one is blaming skin color but I'm not even sure what that means.



then why would you repeatedly point out that correlation here...?






http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

You're discussing the wrong topic.


B-b-b black males commit a majority of gun related homicides. :smiley:






It's not really matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's a matter of demographics.

That is, it's a matter of acknowledging that the US would have murder rate like that of France if it wasn't "diverse".


black males commit a majority of gun related homicides.

[Mister D]

The graph...

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/12/01/gunmap.png

Basically proves it's not folks in rural Amerrrika who love their guns that are shooting up the place.

Of course it's not and every sentient being knows that. Gun violence is overwhelmingly an urban phenomenon and one rightly associated with communities of color.

[Mister D]

then why would you repeatedly point out that correlation here...?

because some people insist on ignoring that reality and prefer instead to talk about a problem that doesn't exist. That's what happens when we spend too much time trying not to look "racist" .

[Mister D]

Reminds me of stop and frisk. Gee, who thought state action to curb gun violence would affect black men disproportionately? :rollseyes:

[The Sage of Main Street]

I would suggest you look up what an ad hom is:

ad ho·mi·nem

adjective
1.
appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason).
2.
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.



It is not reasonable to assume that data are unaffected by the emotions and desires of those who accumulate the data. There are too many Ad Angelum based arguments, sheltering the advocate from personality-based accusations of ulterior motives, as if he were a disembodied intellect solely driven by facts.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Comparisons for the United States should be made to other wealthy countries. If one looks at murder rates in the Western European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan - the rich world - as shown in the UN data, no country comes close to that of the US.

That's because of our feral races. The rate of American Whites is the same as in the homogeneous countries.

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's not really matter of Democrats vs. Republicans. It's a matter of demographics. That is, it's a matter of acknowledging that the US would have murder rate like that of France if it wasn't "diverse".

Diversity Is Perversity

[The Sage of Main Street]

I think that is an over simplification of the situation...

I understand, but what would you say if Big Brother weren't watching over your shoulder? Come on, you can whisper it to me; I won't tell anybody else.

[The Sage of Main Street]

" The importance of gun control cannot be minimized. The state level is the appropriate level to examine this. And our previous state level analysis found gun deaths to be significantly lower in states with stricter gun control laws. We found substantial negative correlations between the rate of gun deaths and states that ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage requirements for guns. Moroz is right to point out that a nuanced analysis of gun violence in America requires a careful accounting for the socio-economic factors that come into play at different geographic scales. Still, the consistency of our findings across metro and state levels strongly suggest that gun violence is not just the product of troubled or deranged individuals, as is commonly portrayed, but is both associated with and embedded within the economic and social context of places. Whether looking at the state or metro level, we find strikingly consistent associations between gun violence and key markers of socio-economic disadvantage — poverty, income, education, class, and race. Of course, center cities bear the heaviest concentrations of such socio-economic disadvantage and we are likely to find even stronger associations and more magnified patterns there, as Moroz does for unemployment. Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start. " http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/ I feel so touch-feely and warm and fuzzy. It makes me want to go hug a thug.

[Paperback Writer]

Irish people are so dismal.

[The Sage of Main Street]

murder by gun is a real problem. blaming skin color would be a 'made-up problem'.

Again, pretending it's about "skin color" is totally dishonest. You want to discredit the other side by claiming it has the most superficial motivation you can think up.

[Paperback Writer]

murder by gun is a real problem. blaming skin color would be a 'made-up problem'.

It is as real a problem as any other type of violence and yet guns don't go off by themselves. You ought to blame people, specifically, consider why it is that people are so violent. Without curbing violent behaviour in general people will only use something else to kill with.

How can reasonably intelligent people overlook this simple fact? Pro-gun control advocates side-track every significant discussion on reasons for violence by blaming the method. Remove one method they will move to another. They always have. Gun control won't bring down rapes, will it? And yet it is the same malevolent spirit that causes both. There are studies that show that murderers have raped and that rapists murder. How will gun control stop violence against women? It won't but it will leave them without defence.

[Chris]

It is as real a problem as any other type of violence and yet guns don't go off by themselves. You ought to blame people, specifically, consider why it is that people are so violent. Without curbing violent behaviour in general people will only use something else to kill with.

How can reasonably intelligent people overlook this simple fact? Pro-gun control advocates side-track every significant discussion on reasons for violence by blaming the method. Remove one method they will move to another. They always have. Gun control won't bring down rapes, will it? And yet it is the same malevolent spirit that causes both. There are studies that show that murderers have raped and that rapists murder. How will gun control stop violence against women? It won't but it will leave them without defence.


What would you say for BINGO! in England?

[jillian]

The topic isn't Breitbart, @jillian (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=719) And he's dead, ergo he's not "lying scum". The topic is the UN numbers and regardless of the "laws" of those nations, the numbers stand and are interesting.

SO...back on topic,

are you saying it is our anti-murder laws, not guns that prevent homicides in the US?

he may be dead but his prevaricating site lives on.

the "topic" is that the article from BREITBART relied on stats but never explained the laws in those states. correlation without causation.

guns don't prevent homicides.

and once again… this is the list of states with the deadliest mass shootings. most are in red states with little or no gun control (not all, most).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

that pretty much shoots down breitbart, doesn't it?

[Codename Section]

he may be dead but his prevaricating site lives on.

the "topic" is that the article from BREITBART relied on stats but never explained the laws in those states. correlation without causation.

guns don't prevent homicides.

and once again… this is the list of states with the deadliest mass shootings. most are in red states with little or no gun control (not all, most).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

that pretty much shoots down breitbart, doesn't it?

Mass shootings are not aggregate and those in CNN are if you do your research are areas, such as the campuses, that are gun free zones. Virginia Tech, for example.

Besides, those of us who care to have discussed this already. It's really getting old if we're going to keep glossing over with flybys that mean nothing. Either you want to stay and engage on the topic or ya don't.

Gun control didn't stop the VA Tech shooter. It only prevented other students from firing back.

[Chris]

he may be dead but his prevaricating site lives on.

the "topic" is that the article from BREITBART relied on stats but never explained the laws in those states. correlation without causation.

guns don't prevent homicides.

and once again… this is the list of states with the deadliest mass shootings. most are in red states with little or no gun control (not all, most).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

that pretty much shoots down breitbart, doesn't it?



Well, I see your back to continue your ad hom. Breitbart was just reporting what others had, others being the UN. But you can't see past your ad hom..




never explained the laws in those states

Of course not, Breitbart nor anyone has made any claim about laws, only a correlation between violent crime and gun ownership.


You really ought to read the article before criticizing it.



guns don't prevent homicides.

Nice opinion. No supporting data whatsoever.




http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-...ry-fast-facts/

that pretty much shoots down breitbart, doesn't it?

Not at all. It only reports what it calls mass shooting. The sample size is too small to even claim correlation.

[jillian]

Well, I see your back to continue your ad hom. Breitbart was just reporting what others had, others being the UN. But you can't see past your ad hom..

the only ad homs are yours.

feel free to stop trolling any time you wish.

[Chris]

the only ad homs are yours.

feel free to stop trolling any time you wish.


What ad hom would that be, jillian? Seems you make a lot of claims without any evidence whatsoever to back it up with.

I take it you have no counter argument to my previous post.

[hanger4]

the only ad homs are yours.

feel free to stop trolling any time you wish.

So, Breitbart reports what the UN says,

you claim no validity by attacking the messenger.

So, next time you, jillian, post an OP it matters not the

truthfulness or validity of posted OP I can just

attack the messenger just like you and you

can't say anything without being a hypocrite.

You're to easy kid.

[Mister D]

Mass shootings are not aggregate and those in CNN are if you do your research are areas, such as the campuses, that are gun free zones. Virginia Tech, for example.

Besides, those of us who care to have discussed this already. It's really getting old if we're going to keep glossing over with flybys that mean nothing. Either you want to stay and engage on the topic or ya don't.

Gun control didn't stop the VA Tech shooter. It only prevented other students from firing back.

Mass shootings represent a small fraction of gun related homicides.

[Chris]

Mass shootings represent a small fraction of gun related homicides.

Data:

http://i.snag.gy/w4MzF.jpg

@ Adjusted Mass Public Shootings per Decade Uncorrelated With Gun Ownership (http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7031)

[Ravi]

Breitbart was just reporting what others had, others being the UN.


Wrong. Breitbart didn't report what the UN said. Breitbart found a map made by Small Arms Survey and a map made by the UN and twisted the information to suit its purpose.

The UN map is a map of homicides, not gun homicides, for one. For two, "clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis" is a not a conclusion anyone can draw from the two maps since the UN map strictly deals with homicide, not crime.

Interesting to note that countries with well developed social programs have fewer homicides than countries with poor or no social programs.

[Chris]

Wrong. Breitbart didn't report what the UN said. Breitbart found a map made by Small Arms Survey and a map made by the UN and twisted the information to suit its purpose.

The UN map is a map of homicides, not gun homicides, for one. For two, "clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis" is a not a conclusion anyone can draw from the two maps since the UN map strictly deals with homicide, not crime.

Interesting to note that countries with well developed social programs have fewer homicides than countries with poor or no social programs.


Wrong. Breitbart didn't report what the UN said.

First sentence of the link to Brietbart:


Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis.

Even you contradict yourself:


The UN map....

Which is it, ravi, do you know?

If you don't get your facts rights, ravi, you're not going to draw logical conclusions.




Interesting to note that countries with well developed social programs have fewer homicides than countries with poor or no social programs.

Any data to support this?

[bladimz]

If there are too many "wannabe cops," there'll be a shortage of wannabe criminals.As long as all the "wannabe law enforcement officers" are all educated in firearms, well-trained, certified and tested every 3 years, i suppose then there might some semblance of logic re: the OP.

[bladimz]

Death by gun clearly reflects the class divides which vex America, being substantially more likely in poorer, less advantaged places. And this concentrated nature of gun violence makes it easier for those in more affluent and sheltered places to ignore its consequences. Yes, our nation is in desperate needs of strategies to bridge its burgeoning class divide, but if we truly care to limit the carnage caused by guns in our society, controlling them is the best place to start. "
This here is the main thrust of the damage caused by the Corporatist system in this country. The less advantaged are that way for a reason.

[Chris]

As long as all the "wannabe law enforcement officers" are all educated in firearms, well-trained, certified and tested every 3 years, i suppose then there might some semblance of logic re: the OP.



You mean like the logic of the source you cited that falsely reported a study on violence and guns?

[Chris]

This here is the main thrust of the damage caused by the Corporatist system in this country. The less advantaged are that way for a reason.


Then, considering how long we've fought the War on Poverty, perhaps liberal welfare is not the solution.

[bladimz]

Murder is the problem, violence is the problem. Or are murder and violence symptoms of another problem?


By the OP, which still stands, no one has falsified, guns in the hands of private citizens could well be a solution....yes, private citizens who are well-educated in the use of guns, well-trained, certified and tested every 3 years. That might help.

[Paperback Writer]

Wrong. Breitbart didn't report what the UN said. Breitbart found a map made by Small Arms Survey and a map made by the UN and twisted the information to suit its purpose.

Is the data incorrect? No. It is not. Jump about and wiggle up and down, but the data is correct. Regardless of who presented it, if the data matches that supplied by the UN the charts are correct.

The charts are correct.



The UN map is a map of homicides, not gun homicides, for one. For two, "clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis" is a not a conclusion anyone can draw from the two maps since the UN map strictly deals with homicide, not crime.


Homicide is a crime last I heard.



Interesting to note that countries with well developed social programs have fewer homicides than countries with poor or no social programs.

You have social programmes in the US. What you lack is a culture that prioritises life and kindness as evident by this forum.

[bladimz]

Then, considering how long we've fought the War on Poverty, perhaps liberal welfare is not the solution.Corporatism was not a consideration of the equation in the "attempt" to battle poverty in this country. It should have been, and it should be now. As long as we're talking welfare, corporate welfare serves no one but the entities that need it the least.

[Ravi]

First sentence of the link to Brietbart:



Even you contradict yourself:



Which is it, ravi, do you know?

If you don't get your facts rights, ravi, you're not going to draw logical conclusions.





Any data to support this?

Quit kneejerking and look at the maps. One is a Small Arms Survey map and the other is a UN map. Jeesh, do you need constant reminding to overlook your confirmation bias or what?

[Ravi]

Is the data incorrect? No. It is not. Jump about and wiggle up and down, but the data is correct. Regardless of who presented it, if the data matches that supplied by the UN the charts are correct.

The charts are correct.



Homicide is a crime last I heard.



You have social programmes in the US. What you lack is a culture that prioritises life and kindness as evident by this forum.
Homicide is a crime but it certainly isn't the only crime. Therefore Brieitbart's statement is false.

Our social programs, while better than most third world countries social programs, are not nearly up to the standard of the rest of the civilized world.

[Chris]

...yes, private citizens who are well-educated in the use of guns, well-trained, certified and tested every 3 years. That might help.


How will that help with the prevalence of violence in the US?

[Paperback Writer]

Homicide is a crime but it certainly isn't the only crime. Therefore Brieitbart's statement is false.

What statement in the OP are you referring to? The OP states that homicides are lower in countries "with lots of guns" and supplies two links: one from the UN and one from Breitbart to explain the graphics.




Our social programs, while better than most third world countries social programs, are not nearly up to the standard of the rest of the civilized world.

Of course they're not. Americans are haphazard which is a deadly sin in a nation your size.

[Chris]

Quit kneejerking and look at the maps. One is a Small Arms Survey map and the other is a UN map. Jeesh, do you need constant reminding to overlook your confirmation bias or what?

Deal with your personal problems on your own, ravi, no need to expose them to everyone.

Again, from the OP source: "Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis."

[Mister D]

How will that help with the prevalence of violence in the US?

It won't. Symbolism over substance.

[Ravi]

What statement in the OP are you referring to? The OP states that homicides are lower in countries "with lots of guns" and supplies two links: one from the UN and one from Breitbart to explain the graphics.



Of course they're not. Americans are haphazard which is a deadly sin in a nation your size.
The one I quoted (put quotation marks around) in the post you responded to.

[Chris]

What statement in the OP are you referring to? The OP states that homicides are lower in countries "with lots of guns" and supplies two links: one from the UN and one from Breitbart to explain the graphics.


...


The Brietbart one, that states clearly "Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis."

[Ravi]

Deal with your personal problems on your own, ravi, no need to expose them to everyone.

Again, from the OP source: "Maps made by the U.N. office on Drugs and Crime (circa 2007) clearly show that where gun ownership is highest in the world, crime is lowest on a per capita basis."
:rolleyes: Maps, plural, according to the article. Yet only one was from the UN. Again, saying Brietbart is merely reporting what the UN said is incorrect. The UN said nothing of the sort.

[Chris]

It won't. Symbolism over substance.



Feel good politics. Blad has argued something against whatever, so he can now feel good. Off-target, so, he still gets to feel good.

[Chris]

:rolleyes: Maps, plural, according to the article. Yet only one was from the UN. Again, saying Brietbart is merely reporting what the UN said is incorrect. The UN said nothing of the sort.



We know you disagree with the conclusion drawn from the UN maps. We don't know why as you've said nothing to dispute it other than you disagree. Come back with an argument instead of kneejerk repetition.

[Ravi]

We know you disagree with the conclusion drawn from the UN maps. We don't know why as you've said nothing to dispute it other than you disagree. Come back with an argument instead of kneejerk repetition.
^can never admit to being wrong

[Paperback Writer]

The one I quoted (put quotation marks around) in the post you responded to.

The one that is not in the OP, you mean?

Back to agreeing with you on why we're better...

Americans spend more money on health care for the poor than we do. Twice as much. However, what we do better is that we apply more money to social programmes that improve quality of life, therefore improving health. We also have lowered our administrative costs of these social programs, which you lads have not. More of our tax dollars actually go to people that need it as opposed to paying for administration.

You were quite fine with your current health system. You were not fine in administrating your programmes or looking at them reasonably. This goes back to my posit about your lack of depth when it comes to seeing through courses of action.

[Ravi]

The one that is not in the OP, you mean?

Back to agreeing with you on why we're better...

Americans spend more money on health care for the poor than we do. Twice as much. However, what we do better is that we apply more money to social programmes that improve quality of life, therefore improving health. We also have lowered our administrative costs of these social programs, which you lads have not. More of our tax dollars actually go to people that need it as opposed to paying for administration.

You were quite fine with your current health system. You were not fine in administrating your programmes or looking at them reasonably. This goes back to my posit about your lack of depth when it comes to seeing through courses of action.

I am not fine with our health care system. It has been a national shame for decades.

[Paperback Writer]

I am not fine with our health care system. It has been a national shame for decades.

*sigh*

If you were better educated on the topic of our systems and your own you'd see that your health care system is fine. You spend more money on health care for the poor than we do.

We put our emphasis on social programmes and that has cut costs to our national health system. If you were able to do the same and not fuck it up like you've done with your entitlement system you'd already see the benefits.

[Chris]

*sigh*

If you were better educated on the topic of our systems and your own you'd see that your health care system is fine. You spend more money on health care for the poor than we do.

We put our emphasis on social programmes and that has cut costs to our national health system. If you were able to do the same and not fuck it up like you've done with your entitlement system you'd already see the benefits.



Not to get off topic, violent crime correlated with gun ownership, but this report, U.S. Ranks Third Lowest of Eleven Countries on Health Care Spending (http://blog.independent.org/2013/11/26/u-s-ranks-third-lowest-of-eleven-countries-on-health-care-spending/), questions some of your assumptions, paper. Perhaps I should start a new topic on it....

[jillian]

NYC had "Stop and Frisk" which drove down crime rates.

crime rates were down since Giuliani was mayor. that had nothing to do with "stop and frisk" which mostly got low-level drug busts.

[Mister D]

crime rates were down since Giuliani was mayor. that had nothing to do with "stop and frisk" which mostly got low-level drug busts.

Your Mayor and the NYPD disagree.

[Mr Happy]

Your Mayor and the NYPD disagree.

They're politicians. They're bound to..

[Mister D]

They're politicians. They're bound to..

To disagree with Jillian? lol Why?

[jillian]

To disagree with Jillian? lol Why?

You mean they disagree with the vast majority of New Yorkers.

They're defending their own misguided policy. I understand that you like it because it victimizes and makes suspects young black males.

[Mister D]

You mean they disagree with the vast majority of New Yorkers.

They're defending their own misguided policy. I understand that you like it because it victimizes and makes suspects young black males.

Hey, if I hated them I'd say let them kill each other and 'Knockout Game' a few kikes while they're at it. :wink:

[Mister D]

You mean they disagree with the vast majority of New Yorkers.

They're defending their own misguided policy. I understand that you like it because it victimizes and makes suspects young black males.

Oh, and you're lying. NYC is almost evenly split on the policy and split along racial lines.