HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Take this you gun nutters...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:37 PM

Take this you gun nutters !!!

Here is empirical proof on the effect of guns... USA has an insane amount of leverage over that regression line...but it is not an outlier... ie..even if you take it out of the dataset...the regression line is not going to change a whole lot...bottom line..NRA claim that increasing number of guns is going to make us safer is a bloody lie...all it does is increase the revenue of the gun industry..you can either agree with me or be wrong...


88 replies, 5365 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply Take this you gun nutters !!! (Original post)
srican69 Dec 2012 OP
tblue Dec 2012 #1
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #5
EOTE Dec 2012 #8
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #10
EOTE Dec 2012 #12
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #15
EOTE Dec 2012 #17
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #21
EOTE Dec 2012 #61
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #11
srican69 Dec 2012 #14
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #16
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #84
Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #86
srican69 Dec 2012 #7
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #48
jody Dec 2012 #2
morningfog Dec 2012 #3
morningfog Dec 2012 #4
srican69 Dec 2012 #6
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #18
jody Dec 2012 #23
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #32
jody Dec 2012 #34
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #37
jody Dec 2012 #40
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #44
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #38
jody Dec 2012 #41
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #43
jody Dec 2012 #45
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #46
jody Dec 2012 #47
jody Dec 2012 #22
srican69 Dec 2012 #26
jody Dec 2012 #31
EOTE Dec 2012 #9
jody Dec 2012 #25
yardwork Dec 2012 #51
jody Dec 2012 #54
EOTE Dec 2012 #62
jody Dec 2012 #63
rucky Dec 2012 #87
jody Dec 2012 #88
Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #49
jody Dec 2012 #56
Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #60
jody Dec 2012 #64
Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #67
jody Dec 2012 #68
Flabbergasted Dec 2012 #69
yardwork Dec 2012 #50
jody Dec 2012 #55
baldguy Dec 2012 #59
jody Dec 2012 #65
srican69 Dec 2012 #13
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #19
jody Dec 2012 #35
jody Dec 2012 #28
Forrestted Dec 2012 #20
k2qb3 Dec 2012 #24
srican69 Dec 2012 #30
k2qb3 Dec 2012 #83
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #27
ehrenfeucht games Dec 2012 #53
crazyjoe Dec 2012 #85
Doctor_J Dec 2012 #29
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #33
jody Dec 2012 #36
socialindependocrat Dec 2012 #39
jody Dec 2012 #42
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #77
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #52
krispos42 Dec 2012 #57
Initech Dec 2012 #58
jody Dec 2012 #66
srican69 Dec 2012 #70
jody Dec 2012 #74
srican69 Dec 2012 #76
jody Dec 2012 #78
srican69 Dec 2012 #79
jody Dec 2012 #80
srican69 Dec 2012 #81
jody Dec 2012 #82
srican69 Dec 2012 #71
jody Dec 2012 #75
guardian Dec 2012 #72
srican69 Dec 2012 #73

Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:52 PM

1. Oh my gosh! I'd be safer in Chile!

The USA is off the rails. WTF are we doing?

I teach K-2, okay? So last Friday I had to request (demand actually) that my school provide training so I know what to do if some ahole wants to come to my work to unleash his frustration on the little kids I am responsible for. These are kids who draw pictures of rainbows and doggie astronauts, and write 'I love Mommy' when they have free time on their computers.

Why don't all you gun-lover/people-haters get yourself an island where everyone can pack heat with no restrictions? Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:22 PM

5. We're not off the rails.

 

In fact, we seem to be pretty close to the linear regression line.

A little above the line, sure, but that's true of roughly half of the countries on the chart.

We seem to be pretty much just where we have chosen to be by virtue of our gun policy decisions.

Everything is going according to plan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:39 PM

8. What on earth are you suggesting?

We have more gun related deaths per capita than ANY other first world nation by a long shot. Even when factoring in for gun ownership we're out of control. I suppose your post might be sarcastic, but it's rather hard to tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:49 PM

10. If I am reading the chart correctly, we are about where...

 

...we should expect to be given the number of guns in our society.

I'm just judging based on how close we are to the line of regression (in red) that is drawn on the chart.

If we were far, far away from that red line, that might be surprising, but we aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:55 PM

12. The point of the graph is that the more guns you have, the more gun deaths there are.

That may seem like common sense, but about half of this country is suggesting that we need more guns, not less.

And even accounting for gun ownership, we're still an outlier. This graph suggests that we need to change both our culture and put restrictions on guns if we want to stop this madness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:05 PM

15. Whether we need more or fewer guns depends on whether we want more or fewer gun deaths.

 

The chart seems to indicate how gun policy decisions effect gun death rates.

We can use this information to make informed decisions on gun policy, once we come to an agreement on what we would like to see happen with gun death rates.

Personally, I'd like to see gun death rates go down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:14 PM

17. You needn't need be so subtle.

Communication on the internet can be difficult, subtlety often isn't warranted.

You must understand that there is an incessant flood of new users here who will do everything in their power to discredit graphs such as the ones shown above to further their pro-gun agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

21. I've been called a lot of things, but "subtle" is a new one.

 

Let's see if I can do this with a little less subtlety.

"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
their spears into pruning hooks,
and their AK-47s into guitars"


Isaiah 2:4




#!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:09 AM

61. Glad I could be the first :p NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:52 PM

11. BTW, the initial post also makes the point that we are NOT an outlier on that chart. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:02 PM

14. I posted the op...an outlier in statistics is a datapoint

that is many standard deviations away from the regression mean..

While USA is not an outlier may be comforting from a modeling perspective..the implications of the model couldn't be more scary...

USA needs to reduce per capita guns in a hurry..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:06 PM

16. I agree. (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:25 PM

84. Over half of them are suicides

Surely that says something. Perhaps there is a better safety net in those other countries that might account for the difference in gun related deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:17 AM

86. you seem to be reading the chart wrong

the higher up the dot the worse it is


we are up above 9 while everyone else is below 6


That is bad


the line itself just shows that the number of guns has a direct correlation to the number of gun deaths

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:31 PM

7. you would be safer in any of the countries in the analysis above

What a frigging shame!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:09 PM

48. You made me lol... hehe.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:56 PM

2. How do you explain the DoJ report below when all have same access to the guns you cite?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:59 PM

3. Are you saying the info in the OP is wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:02 PM

4. Here is one for children:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:29 PM

6. you are doing timeseries in USA...I am doing a snapshot analysis

Across many different countries..

These are 2 different things and one has nothing to do with the other..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:21 PM

18. No, it's not so subtly injecting race into the discussion

That's why the chart with blacks and white seperated was put up, to try and distrract from the fact than gun deaths are gun deaths are gun deaths.

It's a distraction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:12 PM

23. Ridiculous. You can't use the race card to avoid DoJ's report. Clearly it's not just guns as the OP

 

claimed.

If anyone wants to analyze data and call it a regression line then they open themselves to legitimate questions.

OP author claims a regression model with one variable proves guns cause homicides.

OK, then provide the correlation coefficients etc to support that claim.

In addition present an argument that proves guns somehow possess the power to kill humans.

The DoJ analysis suggests that something other than the number of guns is causing homicides. One possible contributing factor is that humans kill humans and guns are one of the things they use for that crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:42 PM

32. You were the one that played the race card

And I'm growing weary of the straw man about guns killing humans, you know it's a shorthand phrase for guns make it easier for humans to kill, an undeniable fact.

If you had just said what you did in the post I'm replying to you wouldn't have been playing the race card.

Of course there's something else other than guns that drives killling but it's not how much melanin people have in their skins so stop trying to imply that.

DoJ thinks pot is a highly dangerous drug, I'm not impressed with the level of thinking there necessarily, far too many agendas.

Take the guns away and people will stop killing each other with guns.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to go off but I just read Ted "I crapped my pants for a week" Nugent moralizing about the decay in American society and I'm standing by for the M$M report to get Charlie Manson's helter skelter philosophical musings on the latest slaughter.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:56 PM

34. OP posted a regression model and claimed guns caused homicides. Is there anyone other than me who

 

wants to just challenge the credibility of the OP's model?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:08 PM

37. The US seems to be about average on the chart the OP put up

A great many killings but a tremendous number of guns.

I already admitted the main driving factor is something other than guns and that's much more difficult conversation to have.

Take away the guns and gun deaths will cease, some percentage of those who would kill with a gun will find another means but a lot of casual killing will stop, guns make it too easy to kill as Sandy Hook demonstrates in about as point blank fashion as I could imagine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:37 PM

40. Fumesucker perhaps you might think I'm your enemy, other DUers do, but I'm not.

 

I've seen violent death up close and personal over my life, sometimes in combat and other times in everyday occurrences.

I grieve when I read angry, vituperative exchanges about RKBA between the ANTIS & PROS when in the background I hear 20 voices from the Sandy Hook tragedy asking "Please don't let this happen again"!

Am I the only one who hears their cries?

Many people live in places where LEO response to a 911 call are more than 10 minutes away or perhaps hours.

Even LEO recommend citizens in those areas arm themselves against criminals who wish to rob, rape, or commit other violent crimes.

On the other hand, when people group together as in a theater or school, they present an inviting target for anyone; mentally unstable, terrorist, et al; who wish to murder lots of people.

That's something IMO society has a right to defend.

That's the problem as I would define it.

A solution would enact laws that balance the "right of an individual to defend self" with the "right of society to defend itself", i.e. social groups.

IMO the first is the older since it predates society and the latter is an outgrowth of society.

Perhaps an imperfect hypothetical would be laws that acknowledge the individual right to self defense of a rancher in remote Wyoming with the social right to defend groups in the District of Colombia.

I purposefully chose two extremes as something like a worst case scenario.

Sandy Hook's 20 Angels await our answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:58 PM

44. I don't have a problem with you, we're fine

This particular tragedy hit a bit too close to home for me, my youngest grandkid is just a bit older than the kids at Sandy Hook. This killing is actually worse for me than 9/11 I think, that was mostly adults, this feels even more personal.

I don't even hate the young man that did it, living inside that head must have been unspeakable horror.

It seems to me that since we have a society theoretically based on a happy medium solution to problems then the way to influence things the way I want them to go is to push for the maximum and make the best arguments I can for that. If were engaged in substantive negotiations for actual law I might act differently but this here is all about inflencing public perception however minutely and I think we can all agree on that.

I have come close to losing my temper a few times on this subject over the last few days, not with any particular individual but just at the whole stupid venal situation. Our society is just so fucked up it's really hard to deal with at times like this, the cartoonists seem to have a better handle on the problems at least than anyone else I've seen and that's kind of pathetic.

Take care Jody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:14 PM

38. Simple fact, more guns cause higher homicide rates.

Other countries have socioeconomic inequalities, gang violence, and dysfunctional inner-city youth culture. Go to a housing estate in London, sometime. In many important respects, not that different to the Bronx, or the South Side of Chicago. Except London has a murder rate of 2.2 per 100K; in NYC it's 6.3 per 100K. The London borough with the highest murder rate is Lambeth (Brixton),where it's about 4.5 per 100K (the highest murder rate of any area in the UK); for comparison, in the Bronx, it's 9.6 per 100K, in New Orleans, it's 72 per 100k, in St Louis, it's 40 per 100K. What's the difference? It's the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:41 PM

41. Please explain how that supports the statistical credibility of the OP's model. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:52 PM

43. How the fact that more guns means more crime in areas with similar social/socioeconomic factors?

If you don't see that yourself you're self-evidently too stupid for there to be any point in my explaning it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:24 PM

45. Or perhaps you're too stupid to explain. So we've exchanged insults. Can you answer the question?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:34 PM

46. Since you evidently ARE too stupid to grasp the essential point:

You're arguing that the reason for US homicide rates is based largely on racial and thus underlying cultural and socio-economic disparities and not access to firearms. Comparing statistics for a socioeconomically and to some degree culturally similar population in the UK, which experiences somewhat similiar poverty, youth-culture, drug and gang issues to US inner cities, illustrates a significant disparity in overall murder rates compared to the US, for which the only reasonable explanation is that access to firearms and not socioeconomic and cultural factors is in fact largely responsible for the rate of violence committed with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:46 PM

47. Have a blissful evening and goodbye. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:02 PM

22. That's DoJ's report, not mine. You asserted guns cause homicide and I asked why the DoJ data

 

doesn't support your assertion?

There must be some other cause than just the guns you cite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

26. doesn't matter if it is your analysis or DOJ..your graph shows that

How guns violence affects two population subgroups OVER time...this kind of study is used to evaluate policy effects....if anything this shows that the assault weapons ban dramatically reduced gun related deaths among blacks...which proves my point not yours.

My analysis examines the correlation between per capita gun ownership and per capita gun related deaths for one TIME SLICE.

If you don't understand the difference..you either aren't being objective or need to take a couple of remedial statistics courses..

Apologies for bring rude... but I have the ability to look at data in a critical manner and present it an an unbiased manner..

The data says what it says...and unfortunately it supports my hypothesis more than it does yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:38 PM

31. LOL why don't you provide all the stats for your linear regression because that's what your OP

 

claimed it was.

You modeled the rate of gun homicide as a linear function of the rate of guns per population.

You conveniently ignore the variance of homicide rates for the group of nations Canada to Cyprus.

That suggests the models correlation may be quite low but we won't know until you let us in on that secret.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

9. Your little graph says nothing to contradict the OP.

Do you suggest it does? If so, you really need a class in graph reading or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:21 PM

25. The DoJ data shows homicide rates about seven times different when both sub populations have

 

precisely the same access to guns.

OP author used a single variable model she/he called a regression model.

OP author then asserted that homicides were caused by guns.

If that were true, then the DoJ data would not show two sub populations with homicide rates that are seven times different when both groups had precisely the same access to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:18 PM

51. I don't understand a word of this post and I don't think you do either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:04 PM

54. I'm not responsible for you being unable to understand simple concepts. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:12 AM

62. Christ, this is not difficult to understand.

Look at that chart. Do you see how as a country obtains more guns per capita, the gun violence per capita rises as well? Do you not understand that many of those other countries have diverse populations as well? This really isn't very complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EOTE (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:47 AM

63. OP says "Here is empirical proof on the effect of guns" OP says it's a regression model but such

 

models never prove cause.

OP did not provide the stats for the regression, the most important being R square.

What you state is a visual impression but that's not the "proof" the OP author claimed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:18 AM

87. Gun related deaths vs. homicides

what about accidents and suicides?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rucky (Reply #87)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:39 AM

88. Ask the OP author. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:12 PM

49. Why would you need to. It's not a comparable statistic. One is a snapshot. The other is a linear.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:07 PM

56. Both deal with cause of homicide. Sorry you don't understand. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:19 AM

60. Your graph does not refute the op. it just doesn't. If it does clearly share your reasoning. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:59 AM

64. First, OP regression line is not supported. Second regression models do not prove cause. Third I

 

asked the OP author "2. How do you explain the DoJ report below when all have same access to the guns you cite?"

If OP presents the statistical results supporting the regression and the R square is "empirical proof" that the "rate of guns to population" predicts the "rate of gun deaths to population", then the DoJ graphs I presented would not occur.

That's easy to understand because both sub populations in the DoJ data had the exact same "rate of guns to population" but the"rate of gun deaths to population" are seven times different.

Either the DoJ data is wrong or the OP's model is not the "empirical proof" the author claimed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:21 PM

67. Strawman. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flabbergasted (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:26 PM

68. Straw-man to anyone who doesn't understand the simplest concepts of regression models. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

69. Strawman:

"If OP presents the statistical results supporting the regression and the R square is "empirical proof" that the "rate of guns to population" predicts the "rate of gun deaths to population", then the DoJ graphs I presented would not occur."

Just because murder rates over time has remained static in the US you cannot conclude that therefore gun deaths are not directly proportional to guns per capita when compared to other countries. It is a strawman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:17 PM

50. Your chart doesn't refute the OP's chart. They are two completely separate issues.

Your charts are showing homicide rates in the U.S. The OP's chart is comparing gun related deaths in various countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:06 PM

55. No they both deal with cause of homicide. Sorry you don't understand. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:33 PM

59. Stop being an idiot.

What's it going to take for gun nutters to understand that 30,000 gun deaths IS A BAD THING? Just because there's it's a couple percentage points lower than it was last year THERE ARE STILL TOO MANY!

Here's a chart for you - UK homicides 1960-2009/10:



Notice anything different? It peaks at about 1000 in 2004. That's TOTAL homicides, not "per 100,000" like yours.

In the US, it peaks in 1991-1993:

Year..........White..........Black..........Other
1991.........11,661.......12,226..........608
1992.........11,229.......11,777..........573
1993.........11,278.......12,435..........601

The fact is America's homicide rate is ten times higher than it would be otherwise, simply because of the easy access to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:09 PM

65. OP submitted a line through a scatter diagram. Said it was a regression and "empirical proof on the

 

effect of guns"

My posts to this thread have all been purely about the credibility of the asserted model as "empirical proof".

Not about the social consequences of things to commit homicides and other crimes.

Statistical models do not prove cause, and regression models with low R square even if they contribute to cause may only explain a few percent of the variation of the dependent variable.

One can discuss such things without getting sidetracked with name calling but that hasn't happened with many of the posts attacking me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:56 PM

13. not to be overly technical but..

It may very well be that we have to exclude US from the data based on the Cook's distance obtained from the first pass to get a more correct regression line (which may even have a smaller slope thus favoring NRA) ...but can you imagine all the heads exploding here if we present an analysis that removes USA from the dataset!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:23 PM

19. I think I can speak for the DU community here

That was indeed overly technical sir or madam, consider our heads already detonated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:58 PM

35. You don't speak for me. OP makes assertions that are not supported by the model as presented. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

28. Please provide all the statistics for your model so one can determine the efficacy of your claim. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:25 PM

20. NRA: "Only More Guns Will Solve The Problem Of Gun Violence"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:17 PM

24. Where's Brazil?

...which has much lower gun ownership and a lot more gun violence? Or Mexico? Or Russia, Ireland, China, any African or middle eastern nation? Britain isn't even there.

Japan gets brought up a lot in these discussions, but they have the highest suicide rate of any industrial nation. If you eliminate gun suicides (and suicides ruled "accidental" for insurance purposes) the picture changes quite a bit. There's a massive cultural difference, same with Europe, entirely different culture.

This chart also says nothing about overall murder or crime rates, just gun violence.

I'm not arguing we don't have a violence problem in this country or that there's nothing we can do, but this kind of selective data isn't going to sway anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to k2qb3 (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:32 PM

30. what next...why don't you throw in natural deaths as well

And completely confound the analysis..

I am just refuting the NRA talking point that more guns make you safer...if you don't get that..I recommend that you attend a good course in data analysis..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:08 PM

83. Thank you for the recommendation...

I recommend that you take a remedial course in quantitative logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:26 PM

27. I would like to see a chart of how many deaths by "illegal guns", which

 

would make the case for more guns. What we need to do is get the guns out of the criminals hands, then our gun death rate would go down.
We don't need new laws, just someone to start enforcing the laws we already have. If you get caught with an illegal gun, lock em' up and throw away the key.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazyjoe (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:24 PM

53. Who manufactures illegal guns these days?

 

Aren't most guns made legally in factories?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrenfeucht games (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:11 AM

85. deaths by people whom are in possession of a gun illegally, ok?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:32 PM

29. Our residual is even higher than the Banana Republics

 

Looks like we're not as bad off as Argentina though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:53 PM

33. What the chart says -

country--------- guns / 100 people---------gun deaths / 100K people
---------- ------------------- ----------------------------
U.S.----------------- 88 ----------------------------------9

Argentina-------------8-----------------------------------6

Norway---------------32---------------------------------- 2

Cyprus----------------38----------------------------------1

As far as I can see, there is something else that needs to be derived from this information.



I don't see why everyone is acting like this gives some sort of definitive support to banning guns.

Sorry,, I had to add the hyphens to get the numbers to allign

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:07 PM

36. Culture is certainly a factor. Perhaps that's why Japan with low gun rates compared to the US has a

 

much higher suicide rate.

It's simply disingenuous for anyone to assert that guns are the cause of homicides.

Statements like that just fuel the exchange of stupid assertions about RKBA between the PRO and ANTI forces.

That doesn't help one bit when the 20 children who died at Sandy Hook are pleading for us to "Please don't let this happen again"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:34 PM

39. I think that everyone agrees that people who kill others are mentally unstable.

the thing we need to do is identify mentally unstable people.

I still think that there is a way to develop a test that will give a hint as to whether
a person who wants to buy a gun needs to be tested further. I guess that someone
would figure out what the answersw should be and void the test.

even classmates of people in college have a resistance to reporting classmates who are depressed or agressive

I guess that if you can't keep guns out of the hands of unstable people then you have to limit the damage they can do.

but how far do you go with that without limiting the people who have done nothing wrong.

I have gone thru gun safety classes and hours of instructor training. It is a lot of work
but I would think that it is better to have to make the effort to qualify for different levels
of access than to be totally restricted from access and being able to shoot in various competitions etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:48 PM

42. "mentally unstable" that's not my field but that gets my lay-person's vote for a primary

 

target to improve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:20 PM

77. And the propaganda king returns for another round

will you ever stop with the Right-wing talking points? I know when you'll stop...when you are finally no longer here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:19 PM

52. The handful of armed people in Barbados are nothing to fuck with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:24 PM

57. Ah, so you include suicides in that number?

Nice.

Also a bit obvious. Or are you shocked that Florida's snowmobile accident rate is lower than Minnesota's? I betcha more people are killed by Fords than Fiats in the US, too.

Care to chart out total homicide rates and suicide rates? Or are you just going to perpetuate the impression that deaths don't matter as long as they're not gun related?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:32 PM

58. Bill Hicks - "You'd be a fool and a communist to make a connection between having a gun..."

"And shooting someone with it."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:48 PM

66. srican69 what's the R square for your "regression line"? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:42 PM

70. adjusted R -square of 0.85

The data is for OECD countries with the exception of Mexico (outlier due to drug violence) and Turkey for which I couldnt find the stats. I also forced the constant to be zero since if we have no gun - there can be no gun related deaths

here is the raw data and regression stats

Country PerCapitaGuns Total firearm-related death rate
Australia 15.00 1.05
Austria 30.40 2.94
Belgium 17.20 2.43
Canada 30.80 4.78
Chile 10.70 0.06
Czech Republic 16.30 1.76
Denmark 12.00 1.45
Estonia 9.20 2.54
Finland 32.00 3.64
France 31.20 3.00
Germany 30.30 1.10
Greece 22.50 1.50
Hungary 5.50 0.85
Iceland 30.30 1.25
Ireland 8.60 1.03
Israel 7.30 1.86
Italy 11.90 1.28
Japan 0.60 0.07
South Korea 1.10 0.13
Luxembourg 15.30 1.81
Netherlands 3.90 0.46
New Zealand 22.60 2.66
Norway 31.30 1.78
Poland 1.30 0.26
Portugal 8.50 1.77
Slovakia 8.30 1.75
Slovenia 13.50 2.44
Spain 10.40 0.63
Sweden 31.60 1.47
Switzerland 45.70 3.50
United Kingdom 6.20 0.25
United States 88.80 10.20



SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.938414523
R Square 0.880621817
Adjusted R Square 0.848363753
Standard Error 0.939459668
Observations 32

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 201.8284815 201.8284815 228.6789409 1.41308E-15
Residual 31 27.36011852 0.882584469
Total 32 229.1886

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 0 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A
X Variable 1 0.098441585 0.006509768 15.12213414 7.42903E-16 0.085164826 0.111718344


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:08 PM

74. Thanks. FBI data for the US is at variance with the data you used for your analysis.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

FBI UCR Table 20 Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2011 reports Total Murders to Total Firearms is 8,541 for the states excluding Alabama and Florida.

Those states have a population of 290,194,635.

That gives a rate of 2.94 per 100k homicides committed with firearms.

Since your data includes countries that probably have few people that own multiple firearms as is the case in the US where each firearm owner owns almost 6 firearms, I believe the proper data is number of firearm owners.

Often used estimates are about 47-53 million citizens own firearms. With our current 2012 population of 314,052,913 and using the upper estimate, that yields a rate of 16.88 firearms per 100 people.

Those rates for the United States of 16,88 and 2.94 are significantly different than your data points of 88.80 and 10.20 putting the US in the vicinity of Belgium.

Please check the FBI data to confirm or reject my use of it.

jody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:16 PM

76. this includes gun related suicides as well as homicides

And suicides far outnumber homicides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #76)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:24 PM

78. If your data includes suicides, then IMO your model is fatally flawed because it excludes Japan

 

et al nations that have suicide rates much higher than the US although their firearm ownership rate is lower, e.g.

Japan 23.8 per 100,000
United States 12.0 per 100,000
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate

krispos42 brought up that topic yesterday in #57

Mea culpa on my other posts for overlooking krispos42's post.

I should have looked for serious deficits in manipulating data but didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:48 PM

79. it had to be a gun related suicide to count

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:53 PM

80. Doesn't matter you cooked the data. You and I know if you presented that at a local chapter of

 

any scholarly society, they would eat your lunch.

Go ahead an preach to an Internet audience of people unfamiliar with statistical analysis and take you bows but you and I know what you've done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:01 PM

81. congrats on graduating from the Jack Welch school of criticism

If you think I am going to take time and effort to 'cook' the data to convince people on DU ..most of whom agree with me...you are either soft in your head or don't belong to du...


I was upfront in calling it gun related deaths...not homicides...

BTE.why doesn't Japan stand out in gun related death s( including suicides)...oh I forgot...it has very few guns to begin with...

even if it did not...do you want to have a bet that if I remove Japan from the dataset..the model isn't going to change a whole lot... So even if I did cook the data...there wouldn't have been much of a point..


Like I said....Jack Welch Would be proud of you..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:05 PM

82. That's the response I expected given the model you concocted. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:57 PM

71. BTW The R-square does not matter - you need to look at


F-Statistic ( 228) which is ridiculously high ( p val of 10^-15 ie the prob that the model predicts a relationship when in fact there is none)

and that the coefficient is significantly > 0 - this disproves the NRA bullshit of wanting more guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #71)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:13 PM

75. We disagree. R square in your model can be interpreted as the percent of variation in the dependent

 

variable explained by the independent variable.

The results you presented suggest the model explains about 85 percent.

Most researchers I've worked with over the past 50+ years would kill to find such results with studies of social issues.

jody

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:21 PM

72. Source? Link?

 

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:25 PM

73. The analysis is mine .. source data is from wikipedia filtered to OECD countries

the raw data is in post 71

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread