View Single Post
Old 02-25-2013, 11:17 PM   #10
I'm gay for the Broncos!
Blart's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,908

all @ same time

Originally Posted by Dukes View Post
You're a little late to the game, Blood Fart.
That's a ****ton of words trying to battle a few stats. Ugh. You owe me 30 minutes.

[INDENT]Myth #1: Theyíre coming for your guns.
Maybe we can agree that this is a myth. On the other hand, when you have an anti-gun lobby that has (1) identified an unarmed society as their goal; (2) lauded nations that have banned their guns;
Which nations have banned all guns? Honest question, don't know one off the top of my head. You can get a firearm in Japan, Australia, or even Denmark (where gun crime is virtually non-existent) provided you pass background checks.

Myth #2: Guns donít kill peopleópeople kill people.
Problem: theyíre looking only at gun deaths.
WTF (what the firearm)? Should they be considering gun-related births? Shotgun weddings?

I canít embed the graphic but when you look at the total violence rate from all methods of killing ó using the same sources they link ó the correlation is not nearly as strong (R^2 of .13) The trend is 0.10 for every percent. So eliminating ALL guns ó even if you assume that there is no increase in criminality ó would reduce the death rate to about 14.8
What study is he referencing? Probably not the one showing that gun deaths are 144% higher in states with the most guns.
Whatís more, there are significant outliers. Nevada and New Mexico are more violent than you would expect based on the linear trend. Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota have high ownership rates but relatively low levels of violence. And there is one huge outlier that shatters the graph: the District of Columbia, which has both a lower gun ownership rate and a higher crime rate than any state. DC is an unusual case, of course. Violence tends to be concentrate in cities and DC is all city. That having been said, the official DC gun ownership rate is a minuscule 5%, half that of Hawaii, mainly due to the draconian anti-gun laws they had until recently.
The other problem this point runs into ó and youíre going to see this again and again ó is that correlation is not causation. Maybe guns do cause violence. But you could equally argue that being in a violent area makes you more likely to buy a gun for self defense.
What would make sense here is a longitudinal study, one that looks at how violent crime rates rise or fall when gun laws are liberalized. Mother Jones ignores this because the last twenty years have seen gun laws liberalized while crime rates have plunged. That doesnít show that liberalized gun laws prevent crime, of course. John Lott claims they do; others are more mixed. The fall in crime in multi-variate and itís difficult to tease out the effect of one policy (least of all 50).
My point, however, is that if youíre going to argue that gun ownership puts people in danger, this is the wrong data to use.
Lots of words there.

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I'm pretty sure the more killing devices you give people, the more killing is done.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Defensive uses of weapons are less likely to be reported. People defending themselves are, by definition, less violent than attackers and therefore less likely to fire a gun. The deterrent effect is almost impossible to measure statistically.
I found this interesting, and possibly a good argument for the NRA types. Perhaps we're focusing too much on death, why not consider robberies? A criminal should be less likely to break into a house and steal in the USA with our "Make My Day" laws, right?

But alas, no dice.

"Overall robbery rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership."

Guns don't appear to deter theft. The big difference between robberies in the USA and Australia is that ours more often end in death.

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
The third study mainly restates the earlier point on the correlation of gun violence to gun ownership; see correlation-causation. But MJ misquotes a study again. That statistic comes from a raw comparison of the five highest-gun ownership states to the five lowest. This is an incredibly dubious way of analyzing data, especially when you consider the states:
High-gun states: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama
Low-gun states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware
I would submit that there are larger differences between those states than rates of gun ownership. I also donít think itís valid to measure things by comparing the most extreme elements. I would much rather trust my analysis of all 50 states.
Also of note ó their data do not show that women are in any particular danger. Using the raw data from the earlier talking point, I find similar ratios for overall homicides. In fact, guns are involved in 2/3 of homicides according to the CDC. But, according to this study, they are only involved in about half of homicides where the woman is the victim. Doesnít this suggest that guns arenít the real problem?
And to be frank, all of these studies give me the opposite idea than Mother Jones. Women rarely own guns and rarely use them to defend themselves. Nevertheless, they can be victims. And half the time, their murder does not use a gun, but fists, knives or blunt objects. Doesnít that indicate maybe they should own guns? That guns can be an equalizer? I donít know.
Dude loves to write.

Last edited by Blart; 02-25-2013 at 11:24 PM..
Blart is offline   Reply With Quote