Summations Only

No, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying that any individual should make the choice not to own a firearm, because that will make them safer. And you're basing this conclusion on the statistically aggregate fact that gun ownership is positively correlated with injury or death due to guns.But that's the Ecological Fallacy. It's exactly the Ecological Fallacy. Right, and I fully agreed with it. See? It's up there where I said "Sure." You even quoted my agreement, but here you are, repeating it like it matters.But my point is that it doesn't matter in the specific situation of an individual deciding whether to own a gun, because just as one doesn't choose whether to bring one's umbrella based on the national chance of rain, one really can't make that decision purely on a national statistical aggregate risk level. It's just too imprecise. For instance, there's no reason to consider the national average risk that your child might shoot themselves with your gun if you, in fact, don't have any children.Assuming that, because the national average person increases their risk of death by X percent by getting a firearm, you as an individual will increase your risk of death by X percent by getting a firearm is absurd. It's an incredibly naive act of statistical inference. You may reduce your risk of death - yours, not the national average person's - by owning a firearm. You're the one who has to arrive at that decision. Percy, I don't own a gun, I've never owned a gun, and you have no way of knowing how or what I feel about them. I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about judgement. Which is why I agreed with it. But again, I'm not talking statistically. I'm talking individually. How is it that after over 900 posts you don't yet get that? Made up? Here's what you said:

quote:

---

But since a significant source of guns used in crimes is stolen guns, reducing the number of armed citizens should also reduce the number of armed criminals.

---

How is that not you not being able to tell the difference between a function and its first derivative?

Not all blacks and hispanics live in those types of neighborhoods. Many of them live in smaller rural areas, and are good honest folks. Perhaps your attitudes are influenced by associating with some of our larger cities? I tend to avoid cities in general, and large cities in particular, so perhaps I have different experiences than you do. So you are claiming that the NRA doesn't want to arm honest folks who are feeling threatened by violent neighbors? I find that hard to believe. There are two issues here. First, I feel the purpose of arming folks is to protect lives. I've seen reports where people have shot burglars fleeing down the street with their loot. That's simply homicide, as there is no longer a treat to life. On the other hand, I've seen reports where people are cowering in a bedroom closet trying to get through to 911 when someone starts trying to force the closet door open. That's an entirely different situation, and use of a firearm then is justified as the police are often minutes away when seconds count.Second, it should not be an accepted practice in some of those poor neighborhoods to go out and steal from others, sometimes through burglary but often through mugging, armed robbery or home invasions. Murder for a hot new iPhone is becoming increasingly common in some areas. Seems to me this is simply a type of tribalism, which is one of the earliest form of human social organization. Some folks have accepted as their tribe a local group whose goals and methods are counter to those of society as a whole. Lacking the integrating mechanisms which our society had in the past, this is increasingly common in many areas. Let's not paint everyone with the same brush, eh?

Hardly anybody carries handguns. You've stipulated that hardly anybody needs them. What should I conclude from that except that it's likely that the people carrying handguns are the people who need to carry them? If not, why should I accept that, of all people, it's you who knows exactly who needs to carry a handgun and who doesn't? What's your particular expertise on their needs? And that claim is probably one that we can reject, since it's inconsistent with the evidence. Well, ok. Then answer the question. What's the issue? Well, ok, but again it seems like in that situation, where we have some policy or law that prevents anybody from carrying a weapon except the people whose job it is to do so, people would just hire themselves to carry weapons so they could carry weapons. They would make it their job to carry weapons. Your jewelry store owner would have new business cards printed that say "Jewelry Store Owner and Professional Weapons-Haver." Well, then it sounds like you're reasoning your way over not to a handgun ban, but to a training requirement to receive a concealed carry permit. That's something I'd be in favor of at the Federal level, but that's already the law in most CCW "shall-issue" states. Look, Oni, is this how it's going to be every time, where you can't tell the difference between "most" and "all"? Where I can't assert that some non-zero number of individuals need to protect themselves with firearms without you responding as though I've asserted that all individuals everywhere should be defending themselves with firearms at all times? Do we have to keep going over the difference between "most" and "all" in every single post? Why on Earth do you think I was asserting it was rational to hire a trained security guard for every mentally disabled person? Where did I say anything like that?

Well, yeah. It included countries that had a really high murder rate but a really low rate of gun ownership. That's what was "dramatically different" about them. You've produced a different sample, that has roughly only those countries where the homicide rate is proportional to the incidence of gun ownership.And what you mean by "poor baseline for comparison" is that all the countries you didn't include didn't have a homicide rate proportional to their incidence of gun ownership. A quality you roughly defined as "being Western-style."Well, so yes. When you compare only the countries with a coefficient of correlation between homicide and gun ownership within a certain range that is greater than zero, you will find a positive correlation between homicide and gun violence. Obviously. Right, but the line in your graph rises from -1, -1 and doesn't even pass through 0,0.

Not at all. The countries were selected on the basis of having a Human Development Index which is "very high" according to UNDP. They are "western-style" by virtue of their affluence, and no other characteristic.

I was making one simple point about the teacher with the gun in Israel: it isn't dangerous or ridiculous for teachers to have firearms around children. And of course I know Israel's situation, duh.

And yet, you know, that is not what actually happens in countries with more stringent gun control laws. So maybe a more accurate statement would be that the Brady Center is totally cool with the things that actually happen when there are more stringent gun control laws, but would frown on the things that the author of this footling drivel imagines would happen if there were more stringent gun control laws.

Let me guess that you didn't bother to read any of the article beyond the quote I gave. The only drivel here is yours, as usual.

Contrary to what American loonies appear to believe, the US also has security cameras. Lots of 'em: For some reason the citizens of this great and free republic haven't rid themselves of this monstrosity by shooting the evil cameras with their guns.I've never seen the problem with them myself, as I clearly have no right to privacy when I am in a public place, but however that may be it is clearly the case that all the guns in America put together have proved insufficient to ward off the grim cameras of doom. Perhaps we need more guns. Or bigger guns. Or more bigger guns. Yeah, that must be it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

As I told the truth, and the halfwit told a ridiculous and transparent lie, you would naturally say so. Being you, and all.

To your eyes it looks safe and normal to have a kindergarden class teacher with a rifle strung across her shoulder as an everyday, natural thing? You know, like it's a story book she's carrying.Are you actually insane? Or just a troll? This has to be a Poe, no-one is this mad.

I don't know what you can do to stop your massacres now. Your country has been in denial about gun control and natural justice in society for so long that it now has the psychological and logistical means to carry them out indefinitely. And we both know that they will continue to happen.One thing I do know though, is that more guns will make things worse and until you get some sort of sanity into your gun control policies you'll make no progress at all.Armed teachers and Kevlared children won't help you - the very best outcome would be that it sends the angry and insane to murder in shopping malls, football stadiums, train stations and playgrounds.You need to start treating causes, not dealing ineffectually with symptoms.

Well, Crash, I can see you'll just go on and on about ecological fallacies and the greater value of individual judgment over statistical analysis, so I'll just leave you to it. The fact remains that the best way to reduce gun deaths would be to reduce gun ownership.--Percy

Hi Percy, Personally I think the thread is over -- nothing new has been seen and everyone is remaking arguments presented previously.Perhaps the question needs to be rephrased to look at it a different way.Enjoy

Dr Adequate already addressed the rest of your post, but about this: I'm again sensing that there's something you're simply missing about statistics. Can you describe why you expect a best fit line on a scatter plot of data from 37 different countries to go through 0/0?The point I actually made was that we know mathematically that 0 guns must correspond to 0 gun deaths and that the line must rise from there, and the data we have is consistent with this. You have no data and no mechanism for the line going in any other direction.--Percy