Summations Only

I have never been a big fan of gun control but I think my position is softening somewhat. I would gladly surrender my guns if I believed that it would stop this kind of senseless violence. I am still not convinced that this would be the case, but I do now recognize that we have a gun problem in the US ... a very serious problem.The problem is that guns are the symptom of the problem, not the disease. We have become a very violent society. Our television is dominated by violent programming - from the news to cop shows ... to reality shows ... to teen vampire shows etc ... It is hard to find a non-violent show on television. Video games are dominated by violence. Our sports entertainment is violent (maybe not killing but violent non-the-less)We are a violence-loving society!I am not saying that because someone plays a violent video game that they will go out and shoot up an elementary school. That takes a particularly sick and demented bastard. And I have no idea what would make someone target an elementary school - easy targets I guess???But take all the guns away and we will still be a violence-loving society. These sick and demented bastards that want to kill and maim for some unknown screwed up reason will just have to use axes and machetes instead of guns. And it does happen. Look at what happened in Rwanda - thousands of people were hacked to death with machetes. People who want to kill will kill with or without guns.So until we are willing to give up our lust for violence, these kinds of things will continue to happen.On a personal note: I had not heard about the shootings until I picked up my 5 year old son at school and brought him to his grandmas house. When I walked in with Tyler, my mom started bawling. I'm like what the??? She told me the news and said it had really upset her to think that it could of been any school and it could have been any child including mine. Truly a heart wrenching thought. It is just incomprehensible to me what these families in Connecticut are going through right now. Incomprehensible ...HBD

Your argument might have a bit more teeth if you yourself didn't espouse such an evil religion. A God who hates most everyone on earth, who creates people to be evil and then punishes them for it, who causes natural disasters and terrorist attacks as judgement that indiscriminately kill both guilty and innocent, who will ultimately destroy everyone he doesn't like and set up his kingdom to rule the entire earth. Now we have a very plain view of exactly the kind of religion you practice... and its not that much different than Islam. Putting a man in a choke hold to the point where he dies because he was selling loose cigarettes is "law enforcement?" We all know what would happen if people like you had their way as far as the death penalty goes. You would have the majority of people on this forum (including me) put to death for blasphemy, you would have gays executed, etc, etc. Is this not what the Bible teaches you to do? If you want someone to agree with you that most gun owners are good, honest citizens. Yes, I will agree. But there is a LOT of crazies out there, even a lot of them who on the surface appear to be honest, law-biding citizens. Some who are anxiously waiting and hoping for the day where they can legally blow someone away. I have meet people like that. But yes, most gun owners ARE good, honest citizens. That is not really the problem.Guns have gotten out of control in this country. Many, many innocent people are dying as a direct result of the accessibility of guns. I know, "Its not guns that kill people, its people who kill people." Its actually our love affair with violence that causes people to be killed. Guns are a reflection, a symptom of that love affair and it never ceases to amaze me that so many Christians, who are supposed to be about "love one another" and "bring hope to the lost and hurting" would be so adamantly opposed to gun control and who so defend police officers, who are charged to serve and protect, that use excessive force in the execution of their "enforcement of the law." This is what people see as hypocritical. Christians should be the first to stand up and protest when human beings are being killed needlessly. After all, we are all made in God's image.You however, are not hypocritical at all. You views on "politically correctness" reflect exactly the God the you believe in.What a shame HBD

I don't pretend anything, Faith. What I hate is the mis-characterization of God you present. I know, I know... ... your beliefs are True Christianity. I get it, but I don't agree that they are. On, the other hand, if they are, I am OK with not being considered a True Christian. But this thread is not about Christianity, so I'll leave it there. Could you define "huge number?" Is 20 elementary school students a "huge" number or an insignificant number? Is 32 Virginia Tech students a "huge" number? How many innocent people need to be killed by gun violence before we decide it is time to do something; something drastic? Would you provide a number of gun deaths per year that if we reach that number you would be willing to do something drastic, even like repeal the 2nd Amendment? Would 1 million be a high enough number? 2 million? Where do we draw the line? Do you live in Mayberry? Look around; turn on the TV, try to pick a movie without violence in it, open a newspaper. Now don't anyone get me wrong, I am NOT saying that TV or any media is the CAUSE of gun violence, all of it is a symptom of our love of violence. The world would be a much better place with NO guns or weapons of any kind. Obviously, this is an unrealistic goal, but we certainly need to move in that direction NOT in the direction of MORE weapons.You believe the Bible to the letter, what do you think Jesus would say on the issue of guns? Well, let's see.

quote:

---

But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well.

​

If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer the other one as well. If someone takes your coat, don’t withhold your shirt either.

​

Here’s a question for you: Is it legal on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?

​

Then Jesus said to him, Put the sword back into its place. All those who use the sword will die by the sword.

​

They said to him, Lord, look, here are two swords. He replied, Enough of that!

​

When those around him recognized what was about to happen, they said, Lord, should we fight with our swords? One of them struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. Jesus responded, Stop! No more of this! He touched the slave’s ear and healed him.

---

So, which side of this debate do you think Jesus would side on? Where does the Bible say we need guns to protect ourselves? It's not that we need to take guns away from everyone. It's not that if you own a gun you are a bad person. But it bothers me that so many Christians are so adamantly opposed to stricter gun regulations. It bothers me that so many Christians clamor on about 2nd Amendment rights and our NEED for guns. When in fact, Christians should be at the fore-front of gun control. We should be deeply, deeply concerned about the loss of ANY innocent lives and willing to do whatever it takes to minimize the risks. And I know this is controversial, but we should even be deeply concerned about the criminals who are losing their lives due to gun violence. I am losing my trust in the greater Christian community to have a clearheaded, rational understanding of just about anything. What is it about being a Christian that would make one oppose gun control? I am beginning to think that it is because so many are simply blind to reality, caught up in their own self interests. Maybe it is that they just feel the need to oppose ANYTHING that comes from the "left" (whatever that means).HBD

But if the murderers did not have guns, they would not have killed those innocent people.Your solution of putting guns in schools is an attempt to solve the problem of violence with more violence. It just doesn't work. Violence always escalates violence. If someone wants to shoot up an elementary school but they know there are armed teachers on duty, they would need to step up their game wouldn't they? Those shooters were not concerned about their own life, they wanted to take others out with them. So they are not going to let some amateur teachers with guns stop them. They will come in with more clips, fire off more rounds at a faster pace. Sure, one of the teachers will probably take them out sooner or later, but people will still die. Ok so let's give the teachers semi-automatic weapons as well. It never ends. Faith, in each of these passages, Jesus is saying that more violence is not the solution to violence. Was he wrong?HBD

Are there no preachers that have preached for non-violent resistance against tyranny?Faith, I understand how you think this would work. In some ways it even sounds reasonable. But I just don't agree that the way to solve the problem of gun violence is for citizens to carry more guns. It didn't work for the old West and it wouldn't work in our modern societies. Violence ALWAYS leads to more violence, not less. This is the major flaw in your theory. Who ARE the good guys? How can you be certain that the people you arm are actually the good guys?HBD

People made a "Biblical" case for slavery. So what? Yes, definitely. I would have pulled the trigger myself if I could have saved the lives of 20 children. I can imagine situations where I would not hesitate to kill someone in order to protect my family and loved ones. I get that. But that's just not reality. If we could put ourselves in the exact right spot, at the right time, with a gun, there could be some good that comes from it. But to have guns all over the place on the off chance that something happens where you are in a situation that you do need to defend yourself is just unrealistic. Maybe, until they find themselves in a tense situation. Someone with a little too much to drink at the bar thinks he's being cheated a pool, an aggressive driver cuts someone off in traffic, someone grabs the last PlayStation out of another's hands, etc. Now, we have all these people in tense, angry situation packin heat. What's good can come of that?I don't know what the answer is, Faith. But I am less and less inclined to think that more guns = less violence. That equation just doesn't add up to me.HBD

That's ALL you could respond to You don't even know what "Biblical" case these "preachers" have to support their "position" of going to war against "tyranny." It's Biblical because you agree with it, that's all. Good grief.

So, you are saying that those who have guns are bad guys and those who don't have guns are good guys, and we should arm the good guys which would then make them bad guys? Seriously, I think I know what you are saying, and at one level, I get it. But here's the problem I have with it. Good, honest citizens DO have guns as well as the bad guys. The difference is that the bad guys are using them to kill people. So what we are wanting is for the good guys to start USING their guns to kill bad guys. Now, I know that was a fun game to play as kids using toy guns, but as adults, using real guns, it is no longer a fun little game.The problem I think is this scenario blurs the distinction between good and bad. I used the Old West as an example, and think about the heroes from those stories. Was Billy-the-Kid a good guy or a bad guy? He killed bad guys, right? What about Wyatt Earp? Doc Holiday? Etc...My son, who is 7, was playing a game on his tablet and me being the parent, has to monitor what he does. He was playing an assassination game where you would use a high powered rifle to shoot people. I told him, that he was not supposed to play games like that and for him to take it off his tablet. He said that it was OK because he was only killing bad guys.Is that what we want? Do we have the hope that eventually all the bad guys will be dead and only the good guys will be left? I just don't think it's the answer.HBD

As typical it appears to not be totally bogus, but at best a half-truth, or more likely a mis-representation of the truth. Obviously, who ever made that graph knows nothing about statistics and as you pointed out, did a poor job of laying it out.It appears the data came from Here.There are 186 countries listed but 79 of those countries have a null value for one or both of the data points shown on the chart, so it is inappropriate to include those countries in the chart. For example, Saint Kitts and Nevis has a gun homicide rate of 32.44/100,000 but a null value in # guns/100. Conversely, Benin has a gun ownership rate of 1.4/100 but a null value in homicide rate, which the chart represents as zero.(sorry I don't know how to post this Excel data, so I will just have to describe it)After deleting the data with null values, we are left with 107 countries. A regression analysis shows a slope of -0.085 with a 95% confidence interval of -0.246 to 0.076, an intercept of 5.72 and a p-value = 0.296. So while there is a negative linear correlation, it is not significant. R²=0.010, which means that the linear model only explains 1% of the variation in the data.This chart doesn't say what Faith thinks it does, but not sure if "fabricated" is the right word. Just a terrible mis-representation of the data.HBD(notes for anyone who may not understand the statistical data above)*negative slope means gun homicides decrease as gun ownership increases
** an intercept of 5.72 is the hypothetical value at which the regression line crosses the 0% gun ownership value axis.
*** for the linear relationship to be significant the p-value needs to be less than 0.050 for 95% confidence.
**** the confidence interval means that we can be 95% confident that the actual value of the regression slope falls somewhere within that interval. since the interval includes zero and positive values, we can not say for sure that there IS a negative correlation.ABE: even if -0.085 is the correct regression slope, this means that as gun ownership increases by 10%, gun homicides are reduced by 0.85/100,000. Is that really a worthwhile decrease in gun homicides? Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Edited by herebedragons, : Ooops. An R² value of 0.010 means the linear model explains 1% of the variation, not 10% as I had previously wrote.

I noticed that the District of Columbia is by far the highest for gun murders/capita (an extreme outlier for sure). I wonder if there is a correlation between the number of government officials in a state and the number of gun murders HBD

The link to the data is in The Guardian article listed on the chart. If you're interested, I use MegaStat for Excel for quick and simple data analysis. I got it with a textbook I bought a few years ago, but I think you can get it for free here. MegaStat is not particularly powerful, but it is easy to use. A more powerful statistical software package that I use is R. You can find it here, also free. It is a lot more difficult to use, but is more powerful, accurate and reliable (if you can figure out how to use it ).When I restrict the data set to the countries you listed there is a positive correlation. (slope = 0.022, intercept = -0.038, p < 0.001, R² = 0.552). When I use the "force intercept to zero function", the correlation is even better (slope = 0.021, p < 0.001, R² = 0.706). I am not sure there is an objective reason to restrict the dataset in this way. What is the criteria for being "similar to the US?"There just doesn't appear to be any good correlation between gun ownership and firearm deaths on a worldwide scale. Perhaps if we had a similar dataset of cities within the US?HBD

Statistics are only a tool, a tool that must be used properly to be effective. But, you cannot say anything meaningful about a set of data without statistics. How you get past the trust issues is you learn how to interpret statistical reports. It is a valuable skill to have as data can be manipulated to say what you want, or at least so it appears to say something it doesn't. As with that chart you posted, Percy noted some serious red flags that should have alerted you that something just wasn't right.If you can't analyze them yourself, then you need to rely on others who know better how to understand them. What you can't do is simply ignore what the data says once it is properly interpreted. That statement sounds like "... to make statistics mean what I want them to mean." Typically what one should do is define the parameters the data will describe, then collect the data, analyze it and then accept the results. The original hypothesis was that as gun ownership increases, gun deaths would decrease. Was it not? That hypothesis is not supported by the data we have. All these "questions" are just avoiding what the data says. You could keep looking for data that support your position or propose a new hypothesis. Perhaps you could hypothesize that the more people who are allowed to open carry the fewer gun deaths there would be. Do you seriously think armed citizens could stand up against the government (i.e. the army) in an all-out fight?HBD

I understand the justification for comparing figures from similar countries. What my concern was is the objective criteria for such exclusion/inclusion. For example, I would not have included Israel on the list because of all the social unrest regarding the Palestinians.Of course, we are not trying to submit our findings for publication, but without a more rigorous method of decieding which countries to include, it is not much use as a statistic.Some good criteria might be democratic style government, median income to average income ratio similar (I might have to think about this some more, but the idea would be to compare the gap between rich and poor), no military type conflict in the last 10 years, urban/rural ratio similar... those types of criteria.HBD

I don't understand your reasoning here. You want to talk about how gun ownership effects gun deaths or crime but then you want to exclude the bad guys who are killed by guns and regions with high crime rates. I live in a small village of about 350 households. Its quite rural with a lot of hunters, so I would guess at least 80% of those households own 1 or more guns. There has not been a gun murder in the village as long as I have lived here (16+ years). Is that the kind of statistics you want? Do you think that supports your premise? It is not disputed that differing demographics affect the rate of gun deaths. But what you are trying to do is connect that the demographic of 50% black to the crime problem and to make it worse, you imply that we shouldn't consider those communities when talking about gun deaths. What you are doing, whether you mean to or not, is devaluing the lives of the members of those communities. Sure, if you want to show that gun ownership does not cause more gun deaths, you could choose demographics like the village I live in. But if you really want to talk about gun deaths, you need to include ALL communities, all Americans.Do think the solution to D.C.s homicide problem is to introduce more guns? Maybe get more guns into the hands of whites? Or would reducing the proportion of blacks to say 30% help reduce the crime problem? Again, you are suggesting that the deaths of bad guys is unimportant. You want to exclude the bad guys from the data and then claim that not many people are dying from gun violence? Do we care about people who are being killed by guns or not? What would it be useful for? Is this another demographic that should be excluded from gun violence statistics?HBD

This is true. That's why you need to understand what the numbers and the analysis say and not overstep what the data indicate. Two problems. 1)It includes data with null values. Null values are not zero, there are "no value." Where would a country with a null value in gun ownership belong on the chart? Nowhere... not at zero gun ownership. If it has a value for gun ownership but a null value in death rate, it is placed on the chart at the appropriate place according to gun ownership but represents death rate as a value of zero, which it is not. There were 79 such data points - 40% of the data included in the chart!2) There is no analysis of any trend in the data. You cannot just look at a chart like that and say there is any statistically significant trend. The maker of that chart did not do any data analysis, just presented a chart that seemed to look like it said what he/she wanted it to say. Most likely incompetence.HBD