Summations Only

But there is a clear correlation between the number of guns on Earth and the number of Earthlings that are killed by guns. So if you really want to reduce the number of Earthlings that are killed by guns, then you would support getting as many guns out of the UK military as possible.We should expect that the number of urban Missourians who are killed by guns should drop as well, because the statistics clearly show that the number of Earthlings killed guns correlates with the number of guns that are on Earth and reducing the number of guns in the UK military will reduce the number of guns on Earth.Makes perfect sense, right? I don't know what I was thinking arguing against such clear rational logic. When can I expect you to start petitioning for your military to get rid of its guns? We got people dying over here, be quick.

Uh, that's pretty much the entire point that it gets at.Tthe title is "In Missouri, Fewer Gun Restrictions and More Gun Killings". And it says:

quote:

---

In the past decade, Missouri has been a natural experiment in what happens when a state relaxes its gun control laws. For decades, it had one of the nation’s strongest measures to keep guns from dangerous people: a requirement that all handgun buyers get a gun permit by undergoing a background check in person at a sheriff’s office.

​

But the legislature repealed that in 2007 and approved a flurry of other changes, including, last year, lowering the legal age to carry a concealed gun to 19. What has followed may help answer a central question of the gun control debate: Does allowing people to more easily obtain guns make society safer or more dangerous?

​

...

​

Research by Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, found that in the first six years after the state repealed the requirement for comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, the gun homicide rate was 16 percent higher than it was the six years before. During the same period, the national rate declined by 11 percent. After Professor Webster controlled for poverty and other factors that could influence the homicide rate, and took into account homicide rates in other states, the result was slightly higher, rising by 18 percent in Missouri.

​

...

​

Other measures suggested that criminals had easier access to guns after the permit law was repealed. Professor Webster analyzed data from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and found that the share of guns that were linked to crimes soon after they were bought doubled in the state from 2006 to 2010. The portion of guns confiscated by the police in Missouri that had been originally bought in the state ordinarily a very stable statistic rose to 74 percent last year, from 56 percent before the law changed.

​

...

​

Missouri was the only state in recent history to repeal a law requiring background checks and permits for all handgun sales, and Professor Webster said he had been drawn to study the aftermath because many had considered that type of law to be the most effective at keeping guns from people who should not have them.

​

...

​

Kansas City’s mayor, Sly James Jr., said he had argued against the gun control changes, but to no avail. He called gun homicides in his city slow-motion mass murder.

​

I’m a black mayor in a state with a rural representative conservative legislature that gives the rights to carry arms to 19-year-olds do you really think there’s anything I can say that’s going to bother them? Mr. James said.

​

I’m tired of the fact that we have disproportionate numbers of African-Americans who are dying, he said. Legislators, who are predominantly white, seem to ignore the racial implications of the laws they make.

​

...

​

There is this idea that law-abiding citizens’ rights are being secured, said Richard Rosenfeld, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri, St. Louis. In fact, it’s the people most inclined to do harm whose privileges are being secured.

​

As Rosilyn Temple tells it, guns have become so prevalent in her Kansas City neighborhood that owning one is about as common as owning a cellphone. You can’t buy liquor, but you can carry a gun, she said, alluding to the legal age to obtain a concealed carry permit. The legal age to buy alcohol in Missouri is 21.

---

The problem is that this urban culture that has a fetish for guns does not care about following the laws, in fact the article says that they weren't even aware of the permit system that was repealed, so the idea that the law has a big impact on whether or not they get guns is wrong.The truth of the matter is that the cultures who do care about following the laws, the ones that the laws actually impact, are not the ones that are causing all the gun deaths. So all the law effectively does is hurt their abilities to protect themselves.

Wait. Are you saying that it would be better to have the solution focus on where the problem is actually occurring?Weird. That's just like how I was saying that the majority of the gun deaths are a problem with an urban culture that doesn't follow laws, so it's a bad idea to enact blanket state-wide legislation that would only affect the people who are not a part of the problem.Your response to that was to zoom out even further and call this an American problem.It's so strange that you can identify the Fallacy of Division in one case but not the other. I guess as long as its an anti-gun law then you're cool with it, regardless of how irrational and illogical it is.

Nor is there any evidence linking the number of guns owned by Florida as having any effect on the number of gun deaths in Oregon.There also isn't any evidence linking the number of guns owned by rural Missouri as having any effect on the number of gun deaths in urban Missouri. The same evidence works at the Earth level. According to the arguments from your side, since reducing the number of guns owned by the UK military would reduce the number of guns owned on Earth, then we should pursue it because that would reduce the total number of gun deaths on Earth and somehow that would transfer down to the local level. That's retarded, right?It seems you are capable of recognizing the Fallacy of Division when it works against you, that's excellent.When you posted Message 4510, were you aware of committing it or did you just not care?

And you offered an article about how the repeal to Missouri's PTP law caused an increase in the number of urban gun deaths.The article explains that the urban culture didn't even know about the law, so that means that it didn't even really matter anyways.As I have been trying to convey, your outlook is too zoomed out.1) That problem was not getting solved by that state-wide legislation because it was a local problem, which happened to not have been following the law to begin with because they were unaware of it.2) This is not a reason to have state legislation that restricts the general population, despite the good intention to help stop the urban gun deaths.For 1)I provided the statistics for Chicago vs. Illinois in the beginning, I'd bet that the ones for St.Louis/Kansas City and Missouri are similar, and I don't feel like doing the same math again, so, here they are those same ones. This also alludes to the Fallacy of Division:

quote:

---

Interesting phrasing, and you avoid the question and don't say what leads you to believe this. Anyway, the data says that being in the vicinity of a gun makes you less safe. If you think you might be more safe in spite of the statistics then you are very likely wrong, and you don't seem to know why you think this.

​

Look at it this way. We had the statistic that half of all marriages ended in divorce. You're telling me that I shouldn't get married because there's a 50% chance of it failing. "But we're perfect for each", I reply. "Well that's what the data shows", you retort. What we failed to consider was that not half of all first marriages ended in divorce, and that many individuals were having multiple divorces and skewing the statistic.

​

Now on to guns, lets consider the state I live in: Illinois. We have about 3 million people living in our biggest city: Chicago. There's about 10 million of us in the rest of the state. In Chicago, there were 436 homicides in 2010 among 3 million people. That leaves 268 homides among the other 10 million of us. So for kills per million (kpm), the entire state is at 54 kpm. But Chicago is at 145 kpm while the rest of the state is only at 27 kpm.

​

That's why these gun stats you're using are not convincing. You're grouping together the urbanites with the rest of us and then trying to say that we are in more danger because they are.

​

Populations density and economic disperity should be much bigger factors than whether or not there's a gun in the vicinity. But you're telling me to ignore all that other stuff and just believe that I'm less safe because of my proximity to a gun. I'm not buying it. Message 1303

---

So about that Fallacy of Division - the state-wide law didn't affect these gun deaths in urban cultures.Making the other two-thirds to three-quarters of us (I didn't bother looking up the numbers) yield our rights to guns for useless laws not only doesn't help, but it actually hurts.I've been talking about how I wouldn't trade those urban gun death lives for "injuries" to my neighbors. From your Message 4522: Your going to have to be able to look a little broader than strictly gun deaths for this one.2) This is not a reason to have state legislation that restricts the general population, despite the good intention to help stop the urban gun deaths.Here's a chart of the data for the types of Missouri Rate of Crime per 100,000 People 2007 - 2014, from since the PTP law was repealed: Notice how they all decrese (or stay flat).Here's some "raw data" for you, from: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mocrimn.htmYear Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery Assault Burglary Vehicle_Theft Theft
2007 5,878,415 4,243 504.9 3,738 6.5 29.2 121.9 347 739 2595 405
2008 5,956,335 4,135 498.8 3,636 7.7 27.1 124.2 350 769 2519 349
2009 5,987,580 3,863 492.9 3,370 6.5 26.8 124.2 335 728 2351 291
2010 5,995,715 3,808 457.7 3,350 7.0 24.1 103.2 323 737 2344 269
2011 6,008,984 3,761 447.5 3,313 6.1 24.4 104.4 313 747 2311 255
2012 6,024,522 3,768 451.3 3,317 6.5 25.3 96.0 324 706 2340 271
2013 6,044,917 3,571 433.7 3,137 6.1 27.8 90.8 299 642 2225 270
2014 6,063,589 3,349 442.9 2,907 6.6 28.1 92.2 305 582 2055 270Decrease -185,174 894 62 832 -0.1 1.1 30 43 158 539 135
% decrease -3.15 21 12 22 -1.5 3.8 24 12 21 21 33
Stdev 57825 285 28 261 0.5 1.8 14 19 63 166 52All these terrible crimes have been decreasing since the repeal of the PTP law in 2007. All of these crimes have victims that should have a right to defend themselves. Despite the increase in deaths among a subset of the victims of gun crimes, it's getting better since the repeal. It's especially irrelevant when that subset you want included couldn't have been helped by the law that was repealed because they were unaware of it.If you're going to consider that the repeal of the PTP law caused the moderate increase in urban gun crime/deaths, then you should also consider that it caused this larger decrease in these other terrible crimes.I'm not willing to give up considering for those crimes and just look at people who were strictly killed by guns, in order to judge the performance of a state wide legislation repeal.

I argued that it was possible, not that it does. Do you still think it is impossible?

What do you think of this law?Bill Text - AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders.

The ones that use a blanket approach to try to solve granular problems.(sorry for the drive-by's, I get time to read up on threads on my phone, but will only post from a computer with a keyboard. I just don't have the time at the board lately to spend it here, which I don't like.)

When they include things like someone brandishing a BB-gun and a student caught with a bullet in his backpack, then it makes me question the utility of the statistics on these "gun-related incidents".People can use statistics to prove anything; 14% of people know that.

Your psychoanalytical bullshit is way off. If you want to know what I'm thinking then you can just ask.You were responding to the criticism of a gun safety technology with a shocking anti-gun statistic. When I looked into what the statistic was of, that is; "gun-related incidents", I found that it contained things that were completely unrelated to the gun safety technology under criticism. The stat you dropped ended up looking pretty bad.So I questioned the utility of the stat, I was thinking: how am I going to use this information for considering this criticism of this technology?It's like:A1. This gun safety technology has this flaw.
R1. ZOMG! GUNS ARE BAD, MKAY?Did you not get the The Simpsons reference that followed?Even with the 1200 deaths you've offered, a proximity device is not the solution to the vast majority of those. Your stat still sucks in this context.

and people don't have to want a response from me to get one. And gun opponents don't care how bad the data is, or how illogical the argument is, as long as the conclusion isn't pro-gun then it's good.Any question on the data or logic is branded as an irrational rejection and is discounted, or just left unaddressed.The whole debate is a farce. Well, it's a start...A lot of people have died from guns. Okay, go on. What do you want to do about it?Harrowing statistics and the amazement to the negative reactions to them is not an argument. You do have more than "Guns are bad, mkay?", don't you?**Actually, I've gone through your posts now and I see that you do.From Message 4289:

quote:

---

Larni writes:

​

The sad fact is that Americans do not seem to be able to be trusted not to go on killing sprees.

​

I realize you're just making a rhetorical point, but I think the way you've phrased it is a bit unfair.

​

The vast majority of Americans can be trusted to not go on killing sprees.
In fact, the vast majority of American gun-lovers can be trusted to not go on killing sprees.

​

I recently learned that this was called an ecological fallacy: assigning group statistics to individuals from the group.

​

This message is a reply to:
Message 4271 by Larni, posted 10-04-2015 8:25 AM Larni has not yet responded

---

You got no response from anyone...From Message 4669:

quote:

---

Percy's specific proposal (in the post you just responded to) was to end the practice of falsely claiming that guns make people safe, and stick to the statistically-supported narrative that guns are more likely to harm than protect.

---

Is this not the same fallacy?I don't like proposals that are blanket solutions to aggregated problems.From Message 4501:

quote:

---

Hyroglyphx writes:

​

As for the numbers, self-defense by gun is 80 times higher than that of homicide, suicide, and accidental shooting combined. Don't hear about that in the media though, because it's not sensational enough.

Where did you get this number from? I can't find numbers for "self-defense by gun" at the website you cited.

---

If you're looking for instances of self-defense with a gun, check out the Defensive Gun Use subreddit:http://www.reddit.com/r/dguThey're not all good cases, there's flags for bad ones n'others, but there's probably more "numbers" than you think.You can't use crime statistics to find things that aren't crimes, like self-defense, so these things don't get accounted for. And dgu's aren't really news-worthy so people think that they aren't really ever happening.Still though, the major problem is an aggregated one, and blanket laws simply do not solve the problem.And trying to get people on-board with believing what amounts to a logical fallacy is never going to work.Edited by Cat Sci, : clarified response to first [quote]Edited by Cat Sci, : do => don't

Caliber is just the diameter of the bullet, so it's not as much of a factor as how many grains the bullet weighs, and how many grains of propellant it contains.A 22 caliber gun is a pretty weak one, but a .223 is much stronger even though the .223 is only 1% bigger in diameter. Check out how much more gunpowder is in the .223: Same goes for a 9 mm versus a .357 magnum. It's not the diameter of the bullet that makes the difference...

What do you think would happen if a medium sized town made it so every home owner had a gun?Do you think deaths from guns would go up?Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?If gun deaths did not go up, and violent crime rates did go down, would you consider that as making everyone "safer"?

No, I mean generic violent crimes like Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery. Do you consider a decrease in Aggravated Assault, Murder & Manslaughter, Forcible Rape and Robbery, even when no gun was used in any of those crimes, to be an increase in safety?Or do you only consider it an increase in safety when the reduction in crimes is only for crimes where a gun is used? I'm asking about policies that reduce non-gun injury and death, do you also consider those to be an increase in safety?Or do you only count it as an increase in safety when the number of crimes commit with a gun decrease? Do you omit non-gun crimes from your consideration of safety?

Kennesaw, GA, passed a law in 1982 that requires heads of households to have a firearm and ammunition (with exceptions):

quote:

---

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

---

It isn't strictly enforced like doing door-to-door gun checks, or anything, but the rate of gun ownership is higher than average being estimated at 50% by the police Lieutenant.The amount of violent crime in Kennesaw is very low compared to the state and nation: Source of imagesI can find no evidence of an increase in gun injury and deaths.Don't you consider Kennesaw to be safer despite all the guns that they have?Do you think the presence of guns has had any impact on the low rates of violent crime? (don't forget that in your gun arguments, correlation does mean causation )Why hasn't the town seen an increase in gun injury and death result from the high amount of guns that it has, given your claim that increasing the number of guns can only lead to an increase in gun injury and death?Given that violent crime is low, and there is no increase in gun injury and death to be balanced, can you agree that it is possible to have a lot of guns in town and it actually benefit them?