Summations Only

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.

Message 1159Evidence tells us that gun prevelance at the national level is entirely relevant here.Why you think acceptance of that evidence will lead one to the conclusion that disarming the UK military will lead to less gun deaths in Missouri, and other such strange inferences on your part, is a complete mystery.Of course it could just be that you don't like the evidence and are thus seeking to draw attention away from it with your increasingly bizarre and hysterical leaps of logic.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That's a truly awful argument in favor of strict gun control, as if there aren't millions of ways a person determined to die can kill themselves. Would you outlaw tall buildings and bridges for jumpers? Rope and sheets for hangings? Razor blades? Eradicate all medication in the off chance someone might them to commit suicide?There are other legitimate focuses for gun control than suicide, since suicide is so tenuous and unpredictable by its very nature. Homicide and aggravated assault would obviously make better arguments in favor of tighter gun control.

That's really nave to think that if guns weren't available that magically suicidal people would lose interest in killing themselves. They would simply find another way, just as people who don't have access to guns figure out other ways to kill people.This is the fundamental problem with gun control advocates; they think changing things externally will fix what is ultimately an internal problem. Maybe we should be figuring out why people want to kill either themselves or others rather than trying to create some falsely sanitized world free from bad things.I'm certainly not suggesting that the world is better with guns, because it's not. But we have to deal with reality because short of uninventing the gun, they are here to stay, so we might as well have a common sense approach. And since bad people will do bad things with or without guns, there might as well be a strong deterrent. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

I'm sure an isolated incident involving an idiot behind the wheel of a car wouldn't compel you to do away with cars altogether in response.

And as I stated, in the absence of guns suicidal people will still commit suicide. So what's your point?

The point is that everywhere has people that want to kill themselves and others at times. We can all lose the plot or suffer some kind of suicidal impulse. These mental failings are not unique to Americans. But you guys in the US seem particularly intent on enabling people to act out these impulses with your baffling support for widespread gun availability.

The point is that you are wrong.Suicides are reduced by making the method inconvenient. It is not always the case that someone with suicidal thoughts will kill themselves anyway. Some will find alternatives but for many the fact that there is no convenient method is enough to stop them for long enough to have second thoughts.Simply enclosing headache pills in individual bubble wraps was enough to prevent a significant number of suicides. The fact that people had to unwrap fifty of so individual pills reduced suicide rates.

That is literally the worst and weakest argument for gun control possibly ever. We should deny ownership of guns on the off-chance that someone might kill themselves with it. We should likewise ban buildings over two-stories and ban access to bridges and ban all pills and ban razor blades and ban knives and we should ban vehicles and so on...Hell, the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom should relinquish their arms because suicidal troops coming back from Afghanistan might kill themselves with their issued arms. OR you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.The bottom line is that people intent on killing themselves will find a way. People intent on harming others will also find a way.

Haha, I'm wrong, huh?Answer this simple question: Do people kill themselves without the use of guns? Yes or no. LOL, right, so inconveniencing suicidals is the solution for suicide prevention! Holy fuck! C'mon, that's an absurd argument to be making for a reason to unilaterally ban guns.

Yes. Yes.Now listen very carefully. When people do not have easy access to methods of suicide, fewer people kill themselves.Given that piece of factual information - remember, I said it has been empirically proven to be the case and I gave you two examples - do you think that having a loaded gun in your bedroom would increase, decrease or be neutral to the probability of someone with suicidal tendancies killing themselves? Yes, as I said, it's the reason why it's hard to buy loose paracetamol (Tylenol) in the UK. It's only one of the many good arguments. Others would be to reduce America's hideous murder rate and accidental gun injuries and deaths.

I thought of one other thing, even at the risk of this derailing in to a debate on suicide; and that is that the statistics show that men prefer the gun because of its higher percentage of lethality. They damn sure don't want to survive and become an invalid, so a gun is a safer method than slitting one's wrist. Plus it is a quicker death. However, women rarely use guns comparatively, and that's because they are more worried about what their corpse will look like when they are dead. They are more content with going to sleep and never waking up again.The point is that, like everything else, its variable. Not that it's a good reason for a unilateral ban on firearms because, lets be honest, the percentage of people that purchase handguns with the intent of killing themselves is astronomically low when juxtaposed by people who buy guns for recreation and defense. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Then I cannot be wrong for which you quoted me. What I think is that it is completely and entirely irrelevant since people find other means. Had you said that suicidal people tend to choose the more lethal method, the gun being a more effective method, I would have agreed. But even that is a specious reason for a unilateral ban.You could make a better argument that car manufacturers should not allow any vehicles to go above 60mph, since high speeds statistically result in more deaths than slower speeds. I know, so you've said, the inconvenience of popping blister packs has saved untold millions! No, the latter would actually be a good argument in defense of stricter gun control. That argument at least has a basis measured in reality. The suicide argument is literally the worst argument that I've ever heard for an anti-gun position... And that's saying a lot.

The rest of the developed world gets on fine without the sort of crazy fixation that you guys for guns. We also get on fine with tall buildings, bridges and medicines in the form of pills.We can see that tall buildings, pills and bridges have enough practical uses doing the things they were designed to do to make the risk worthwhile. Someone absolutely decided and intent on killing themselves will probably find a way to do so. Someone who in a fit of pique impulsively thinks 'fuck this I'm just going to end it' is far more likely to actually kill themselves if the effective means to do so is readily available.As for killing others - Not so much.Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

​

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

​

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

​

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

​

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

​

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

​

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

​

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

​

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

​

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

​

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

​

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

​

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

---

Link