Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
62 online now:
14174dm, anglagard, Coragyps, JonF, ringo (5 members, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,309 Year: 11,057/23,288 Month: 309/1,763 Week: 276/390 Day: 96/69 Hour: 4/6

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

Message 5058 of 5179 (821242)
10-04-2017 12:34 PM

Chart Help
I always thought it was rather obvious that, basically, more guns = more death issues.

I saw a few "facts" in a Cracked.com article.

Cracked isn't exactly known for being factual now (or ever?), so it's quite possible these are misleading on purpose.
I was wondering if someone more focused on this issue could explain the seemingly-incorrect ideas the following is making.

Here's the article: 19 Commonly held beliefs debunked with statistics

And I'm most interested in any rebuttle (or even support, I guess) for #18 and #2.

#18 seems to want to say that there is no significant correlation between number-of-guns and homicide-rate.
I don't know if I don't understand the chart, or if their text is misleading or what... but I always thought that number-of-guns generally gave a higher homicide-rate and that it was fairly clear.

#2 says the US doesn't spend an alarming amount on it's military when looked at as a percentage of GDP.
I'm not sure if this is really a big point or not. But feel free to discuss, or clarify if you find it interesting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5070 by Percy, posted 10-04-2017 5:57 PM Stile has responded

Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

Message 5074 of 5179 (821291)
10-05-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 5070 by Percy
10-04-2017 5:57 PM

Re: Chart Help
Percy writes:

A more meaningful correlation for comparing countries would be between the homicide rate and the gun ownership rate, where the number of guns owned isn't considered. The gun ownership rate could be by household or by individual.

That makes sense, I think. I'm not good at visualizing "rates" in my head... it takes me a while.

But this would imply:

IF gun-purchase-rate in the US went down (let's say... everyone stopped acquiring more guns for whatever reason)
THEN homicide rate would drop as well?
Even though the "amount of guns existing in the public" is a very high number.

That makes a certain amount of sense.

Like you're saying... the gun collector thing.
Those that collect guns, buy 1 every now and then and store them. Barely (perhaps even never) using them.

However, if there's trouble-a-foot (like, a gang war or large-scale intentions of violence) then there's a motivation to acquire "more and more and more" guns... and use them. This would drive the rate-of-gun-ownership up.

Is that the general idea?
That makes sense to me.

Here's a scatterplot I made and posted in Message 3018. It shows that by state there is no apparent relationship between gun prevalence and gun homicides:

This seems similar to the scatter plot I linked to in the article (#18).
As you're saying... number of total guns doesn't seem to make much difference... but the rate at which guns are being acquired does.
This graph shows how "total guns doesn't seem to make much difference..." but doesn't show anything about the rate at which guns are being acquired. I think?

Here's a great paper originally posted in Message 3151 that found that each percentage point increase in gun ownership resulted in a .9% increase in gun homicide:

This one I find confusing again.
Is this saying that the number of guns does make a difference? More guns = more homicide, regardless of rate-of-acquisition?

I suppose if the rate is increasing... and this results in more homicides... then during that time of rate-increase a graph that shows number-of-guns vs. number-of-homicides will show that more guns = more homicides.

We would need another graph of number of guns vs. homicides after the rate stopped increasing in order to see if it's just the rate or number-of-guns alone.

Perhaps that's my problem causing confusion? Just the timing at which certain data points are selected for viewing purposes?

Edited by Stile, : Wrong quote name

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5070 by Percy, posted 10-04-2017 5:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5075 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2017 9:56 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5076 by Percy, posted 10-05-2017 10:04 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply
 Message 5091 by Modulous, posted 10-05-2017 4:01 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

Message 5077 of 5179 (821298)
10-05-2017 10:18 AM

Percy writes:

I won't comment about the rest of your post about rates, other than to say that I agree that there is something different about the way you're looking at rates. I don't believe there are any studies about the outcomes of changes in the gun acquisition rate.

Does anyone else want to comment on my confusion about the rates?

I'm just trying to understand the seeming-contradiction between the scatter plots and the bar graphs.

Scatter plots seem to imply that number of guns has no connection with number of homicides.
Bar graphs seem to imply that more guns = more homicides.

Both results (no connection vs. more = more) can't be right at the same time.

I'm just trying to understand an explanation for this discrepancy in the data.

Is someone creating graphs to make it look better for one side over the other?
If so, how?

Is there a mundane explanation (like the one about rates) that explains the issue?
If so, what is the proper understanding? (Does more guns only = more homicides when the rate of gun acquisition is increasing?)

Is someone simply fudging the data?
If so, how?

Posts: 3976
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.1

Message 5122 of 5179 (823335)
11-09-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5121 by Dogmafood
11-08-2017 10:19 PM

Re: Texas This Time
ProtoTypical writes:

Respect for the dead for sure but how about some respect for the living.

I wouldn't call it respect for the dead if there is a refusal to attempt learning and preventing the tragedy that caused the deaths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5121 by Dogmafood, posted 11-08-2017 10:19 PM Dogmafood has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020