Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-18-2019, 09:17 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
On a per capita basis, California has a pretty low number of firearms related deaths. In fact, there is a correlation between restrictions and low firearms deaths across the country. Sure, not all firearms deaths are the result of violent crimes, as many are simply accidents, but dead is dead, and the more restrictions the fewer dead.
California comes in at 27th for murder rates, right smack dab in the middle, and with the very highest gun laws in the nation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

New jersey had the second toughest gun laws- and ranks just about there with CA.

New Hampshire has some of the weakest guns laws, but has the very lowest homicide rate. ND has weak gun laws, and the 2nd lowest murder rate, Maine has the 3rd lowest murder rate and very weak gun laws. Maryland has the 4th highest murder rate, but tough gun laws.

Yeah, you know those "gun deaths" stats? They are bogus, because most of them are suicides. 2/3rds of them, in fact. And as you said, quite a few are accidents. Hunting accidents in states with lots of hunting and weak gun laws. Very sad, but has nothing to do with gun control, because very few want to ban deer rifles.

Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway).

Comparing murder rates shows very little correlation.
  #52  
Old 02-18-2019, 09:22 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,451
"Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway). "

Yeah, lessening the likelihood of suicide (and accidents) is something no government has business doing.
  #53  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:09 PM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
I live in a very rural area, very conservative. I have lived here for over 30 years. It always goes republican.

When Obama was running in 2008, I had one of my neighbors ask me “Are you voting for that nxxxxx ? I was surprised, no hello, how are ya, just a very angry guy. I see him once a week, he is quite pleasant now. Big time Trump guy. He has a lot of company out here. They aren’t ever going to vote Democratic. Their fathers may have been Democrats, but these folks will never follow that path. Guns are a issue for many, they are convinced that the Democrats are going to take their guns. Some of these guys have freaking Arsenal’s, but they are harmless, imho.

The women are slightly different. Some of the women will switch, especially if there is a woman as a candidate. We just elected a Democratic, Elisa Slotkin, over a republican. I think that the female thing is pretty potent. And Slotkin is very qualified, and ran a good campaign.

I agree that most of these folks are afraid of something. I’ve had a lot of conversations with folks that end up talking about the old days. In some cases, they are too young to have experienced it. A lot of us, me included, got hammered by the downsizing of the auto industry. There is a lot of resentment, especially against unions and the Democratic Party, they get the blame, deserved or not. I was told one that there were 3 things that motivated a man, Fear, Greed, and Jealousy. I think these folks score high on all 3.

Have a good one!
  #54  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:15 PM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by bubba001 View Post
. . .

The women are slightly different. Some of the women will switch, especially if there is a woman as a candidate. We just elected a Democratic, Elisa Slotkin, over a republican. I think that the female thing is pretty potent. And Slotkin is very qualified, and ran a good campaign.
Quickly looking through her Wikipedia article, I'd say Slotkin isn't so much 'qualified' as credible. Hard to take issue with ex-CIA.
  #55  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:18 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
"Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway). "

Yeah, lessening the likelihood of suicide (and accidents) is something no government has business doing.
Suicide rates tend to be much less correlated with gun ownership internationally. Japan and South Korea have near-zero private gun ownership but have some of the highest suicide rates in the world.
__________________
Clinton/Schweitzer '16
  #56  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:21 PM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
A couple of other things come to mind. One is that these people don’t trust any mainstream news outlet. So anything that is negative about a republican is “fake news”. They are never going to believe that Trump is guilty of anything. Trump could conduct human sacrifices in the rose garden, and they will stick with him.

Another thing is that these folks feel that they and their kids have been cheated. So they are setting up the next generation to feel victimized. The next generation of republicans looks a lot like present one.

I’d also think that people who homeschool their kids tend to be republicans. No data, just my experience.
  #57  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:22 PM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
Quickly looking through her Wikipedia article, I'd say Slotkin isn't so much 'qualified' as credible. Hard to take issue with ex-CIA.

A lot of republicans sure would. After all, their leader doesn’t trust the intelligence community.
  #58  
Old 02-18-2019, 10:42 PM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
I’m a pretty talkative guy, I belong to several groups, I help my wife out with her business, she has run a service business here for over 30 years. Due to that, we try not to talk politics with folks. I try to listen, and some people I avoid, it just isn’t worth my time to listen to the crazy stuff. I feel that I have been very fortunate in life, and try to be positive toward everyone. One guy I used to work with had his job saved by the union several times. He and his wife had severe alcohol and drug use issues. He was unconscious at work many times. For awhile, I was driving him back and forth to work, as he couldn’t drive due to an injury suffered while drinking. He didn’t see his wife for a couple of years, she disappeared into the drug world. When she came back, she was in a detox program, for heroin addiction. They had 2 kids, that seem to be ok.
But now she quotes bible verses to us, and he rants about unions and nnnnnnns. I try to be pleasant, but limit my contact with them. I don’t get it, but that’s their way.
  #59  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:06 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway).
Was this a murder? This? Perhaps this? But surely this must be, no?

Again, dead is dead, whether by murder, suicide or accident. If I show a correlation between firearm deaths and gun restrictions, but you claim that the murder rates don't agree, then that simply means that the correlation is even stronger for suicide and accidents. Cool, I can live with reducing those even if it had no effect on murder.
  #60  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
"Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway). "

Yeah, lessening the likelihood of suicide (and accidents) is something no government has business doing.
Sure, maybe. But it seems to have little interest in helping anyone with mental health issues.
  #61  
Old 02-19-2019, 12:00 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post

Again, dead is dead, whether by murder, suicide or accident. If I show a correlation between firearm deaths and gun restrictions, but you claim that the murder rates don't agree, then that simply means that the correlation is even stronger for suicide and accidents. Cool, I can live with reducing those even if it had no effect on murder.
Individual anecdotes are pretty worthless in proving a point.

Sure, dead is dead. So, arent you just as dead if stabbed or poisoned or bludgeoned or bombed? So why compare "gun deaths"?

In any case, "gun deaths" arent tracked anywhere near as well as murders.
  #62  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:07 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, dead is dead. So, arent you just as dead if stabbed or poisoned or bludgeoned or bombed? So why compare "gun deaths"?
Yes, but since we're discussing gun control, I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. I've shown a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and reduced firearm deaths, which was simply to counter your cherry picked data which you used to attempt to show that restrictions don't affect the outcomes.

Quote:
In any case, "gun deaths" arent tracked anywhere near as well as murders.
Excellent. As soon as you provide me with better and credible alternate sources for firearm fatalities, I'll happily revisit the data to see if anything changes. In the meantime, I'll stick with the data I have.

Again, since you keep ignoring it, does the data show that there is a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and lower firearm related fatalities?

Last edited by DMC; 02-19-2019 at 01:08 AM.
  #63  
Old 02-19-2019, 01:48 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Yes, but since we're discussing gun control, I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. I've shown a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and reduced firearm deaths, which was simply to counter your cherry picked data which you used to attempt to show that restrictions don't affect the outcomes.

Excellent. As soon as you provide me with better and credible alternate sources for firearm fatalities, I'll happily revisit the data to see if anything changes. In the meantime, I'll stick with the data I have.

Again, since you keep ignoring it, does the data show that there is a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and lower firearm related fatalities?
No you havent. You are using bad data from a bad site. I mean, it uses how many gun laws there are, as opposed to how strict they are, to get their numbers- totally bogus. Here, lets use a very biased (but anti-gun) site:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

I was comparing overall murder rates (from FBI data) vs gun laws. There is no correlation.

If you really want, we can compare gun murder rates vs gun laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...tates_by_state

Ok, so DC has very tough gun laws but by far the highest gun murder rate.
Maryland has the 4th highest gun murders but it rated A-.


On the other end, you have Vermont has the v lowest gun murder rate- but it rates a D.
NH has the second lowest gun murder rate but it get a F.
North Dakota? F rating, but 4th lowest.

Your scale shows them towards the top end.

Mass is right in the middle murder0wise, but your cite shows it at the bottom.

CA has just about the tightest state laws, but is 12th highest in gun murders.

See? No correlation at all. Sure there are states with low gun murder rates and tight laws, but over all, no real correlation. Even gun control promoters agree that gun control doesnt work in the USA- which is why they want more of it.

See this article why gun control didnt work in Chicago? https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/55558...aws-don-t-work

Only way you can get a correlation is to mess around with numbers like gun suicides, which are very poorly reported, and then rank states by number of laws.

Giffords of course does similar- it ranks Vermont "Gun Death Rank: 34 OF 50 STATES" while Vermont is the safest state in the Union- by far.

So, there no correlation when you compare murder rates- which are very solid and FBI data. If you go to gun murders- which are a little less solid (not as well reported)- still no correlations....

But when you make shit up- voila! you can get any correlation you like.

This cite agrees: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/g...hool-massacres

It is fantasy as policy because stricter gun control, within the limits of what is considered reasonable today (i.e., anything short of a total ban on sales or even gun confiscation), does not guarantee or even statistically correlate with lower gun homicide rates in any given state. This fact merits your time for some research, but to give just one prominent example from the FBI data, Texas and California have comparable gun homicide rates each year (they were actually tied in 2015). If gun control were effective, that is not what you'd expect in the nation's two most populous states with two of the most different gun policies. And that is by no means the only observation of its kind that you'll take away from the FBI's annual numbers.


Here's a biased pro gun article on why gun control doesnt work:https://www.dailywire.com/news/7872/...-aaron-bandler
  #64  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:35 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No you havent. You are using bad data from a bad site. I mean, it uses how many gun laws there are, as opposed to how strict they are, to get their numbers- totally bogus.
It does no such thing. It separates gun laws into different categories and subcategories and then checks a box if it applies to that state. It's extremely well normalized. Feel free to share any actual issues with the data and I'll look into it.

Quote:
I was comparing overall murder rates (from FBI data) vs gun laws. There is no correlation.
Really? This again? Even if (and there are too many other factors, such as population density to know for sure) murder wasn't affected by gun restrictions, there is still a strong correlation between firearm restrictions and firearm deaths. If tighter controls had zero effect on murder rates, but reduced suicide and firearm accidents, I'm still on board.

Skipping the rest of your "only murder matters" bullshit, as I'm tired of arguing over cherry picked shit that I addressed in my very first post in this thread, especially since you have refused to answer the single question that I keep asking.
  #65  
Old 02-22-2019, 12:18 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
If tighter controls had zero effect on murder rates, but reduced suicide and firearm accidents, I'm still on board.
That's a big "IF"

America has more privately owned guns than the rest of the OECD combined and yet our suicide rate is below average for OECD nations (if you exclude countries like Korea and Japan, the suicide rate raises to average). It is significantly below average if you count all countries.

Suicide correlates much more to weather (places with longer winters), rural areas (places where people can become easily isolated), and this might be controversial but high catholic cultures or populations tend to have lower suicide rates.

I suppose there are ways to explain away the fact that America is awash in guns but only has an average suicide rate but the most obvious explanation is that guns don't have the ability to make people commit suicide any more than tall buildings, ropes, poison or high speed trains.

Obviously the availability of guns makes accidents but how many people do you think that accounts for per year?

Quote:
Skipping the rest of your "only murder matters" bullshit, as I'm tired of arguing over cherry picked shit that I addressed in my very first post in this thread, especially since you have refused to answer the single question that I keep asking.
Simply put the correlation between lax gun laws and gun deaths is almost entirely driven by suicides. If you don't want to acknowledge this then you are only fooling yourself. Our suicide rate is dead average for an OECD country, so unless you think our equilibrium suicide rate would be significantly lower than other OECD countries, guns are not increasing our suicide rate significantly and the correlation you see disappears.

Murders are not all that matter. Accidental deaths also matter. This is one of the clear costs in society of having guns. An accidental gun death would not be replaced by an accidental knife death is guns were not present. A gun suicide could very well be replaced by another form of suicide. A gun murder may or may not be replaced by another form of murder.

In states where gun laws have gotten stricter, the increase in gun laws did not led to lower murder rates with any consistency. On the contrary, states where gun laws were relaxed often enjoyed lower murder rates. There could a chicken/egg problem here and the relaxed gun laws may be the result of lower murder rates and stricter gun laws might be the result of higher murder rates and not the other way around.
  #66  
Old 02-22-2019, 10:23 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Damuri Ajashi, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, so I can't really respond to your post. You seem to say suicides rates aren't correlated with gun restrictions and then you say the correlation between restrictions and deaths is almost solely suicides.

Huh?
  #67  
Old 02-23-2019, 12:05 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Damuri Ajashi, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, so I can't really respond to your post. You seem to say suicides rates aren't correlated with gun restrictions and then you say the correlation between restrictions and deaths is almost solely suicides.

Huh?
I believe;
He's saying the correlation is driven basically by the method of choice in suicides In places with relaxed gun laws

Wherein the actual suicide rate doesn't change significantly just the involvement of guns

Last edited by Littleman; 02-23-2019 at 12:07 AM.
  #68  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:43 AM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike View Post
The only way rural whites will move back to the Democratic side is if the Democrats can reverse the perception that they are frothing at the mouth for dead babies, and that is the perception among rural whites.

I have said this before, and I will say it again. It's all about the abortion issue.
I agree. If abortion was not an issue, it would move part of the electorate. It would deprive the republicans of a important issue with evangelicals, and Catholics. But a lot of folks in my rural area were republicans long before abortion became a issue.
  #69  
Old 02-23-2019, 08:50 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
I believe;
He's saying the correlation is driven basically by the method of choice in suicides In places with relaxed gun laws

Wherein the actual suicide rate doesn't change significantly just the involvement of guns
I'll let him speak for himself, but if that is indeed what he's saying, he's going to need to bring some proof.
  #70  
Old 02-23-2019, 09:40 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,959
We do understand those rural white voters the thread headline talks about don't care about epidemiological statistics regarding modalities of gun deaths, right?

You could conceivably sell them on reasonable gun control measures, but only if we could absolutely convince them that it (a) will not affect them in any way, but only the "bad people"; and (b) absolutely, positively, definitely will not, ever, go any further than that. We can't. 'cause there'll always be some smart aleck genius with a platform calling for more.


What makes this voting block amenable to the conservative fantasy of bringing back the old times is the appeal to: "you don't have to change the way you live and what you expect from life, nor have society stop enforcing your vision of what's right and wrong, because of something that outsiders have decided is better for you". They see liberal/progressive proposals, and even some neoconservative ones such as foreign involvement and free global trade, as we telling them to "take this medicine, it's good for you, we know better." And unless we can show them immediate results that make them be and feel better, they'll resist. The other side at least makes them feel better now, and they are at a point where they'll take that.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 02-23-2019 at 09:45 AM.
  #71  
Old 02-23-2019, 10:40 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
We do understand those rural white voters the thread headline talks about don't care about epidemiological statistics regarding modalities of gun deaths, right?

You could conceivably sell them on reasonable gun control measures, but only if we could absolutely convince them that it (a) will not affect them in any way, but only the "bad people"; and (b) absolutely, positively, definitely will not, ever, go any further than that. We can't. 'cause there'll always be some smart aleck genius with a platform calling for more.


What makes this voting block amenable to the conservative fantasy of bringing back the old times is the appeal to: "you don't have to change the way you live and what you expect from life, nor have society stop enforcing your vision of what's right and wrong, because of something that outsiders have decided is better for you". They see liberal/progressive proposals, and even some neoconservative ones such as foreign involvement and free global trade, as we telling them to "take this medicine, it's good for you, we know better." And unless we can show them immediate results that make them be and feel better, they'll resist. The other side at least makes them feel better now, and they are at a point where they'll take that.
I don't think I've really seen it said better.
I'd add that there is a lot of personal freedom
and privacy that comes with rural areas.

I can run an air compressor at 2am if I feel like it. Im not worried about what will the neighbors say if the lawn goes a couple days too long.
You won't hear 12 people's opinions on what kind of flowers you planted. Nobody cares where you park your car. A lot less shared space with some jackass wanting to be the one who makes the rules about it. etc.

Big government is perceived as federal involvement in your personal life , which goes directly against one of the biggest things people like about being rural.

It really doesn't matter whether the proposal is good , bad or neutral.

For instance;
Laws limiting the size of soda servings are going to be seen as ridiculously out of bounds for government involvement. Yet they garnish support in liberal areas because well, " liberals " ironically, like to tell people around them what to do, down the littlest detail.
This would never, ever, fly in a rural area.

Framing such a policy in a more generalized manner that leaves choices would get less pushback.
Taxing oversized sodas to sponsor gym memberships or school sports or health education wouldn't get as much pushback.
  #72  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
I'll let him speak for himself, but if that is indeed what he's saying, he's going to need to bring some proof.
Japan.
  #73  
Old 02-23-2019, 02:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
...
You could conceivably sell them on reasonable gun control measures, but only if we could absolutely convince them that it (a) will not affect them in any way, but only the "bad people"; and (b) absolutely, positively, definitely will not, ever, go any further than that. We can't. 'cause there'll always be some smart aleck genius with a platform calling for more.
...
Right, new gun laws would be Ok, as long as they dont think their guns will be threatened. And since they know that they are honest god fearing Americans- their logic is not really bad.

Do we really want guns laws that make it harder for honest citizens to have guns? Well, sure a few gun haters do. But in general, most people want guns laws that stop bad people from having guns, right?

So, sure, better ID checks are Ok, since their checks with come back fine. Ban bump stocks since they dont use them. And so forth.

It's a little selfish logic but it's not bad logic.
  #74  
Old 02-23-2019, 06:42 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Japan.
WTF?

If we're just tossing out random place names, Barbados.
  #75  
Old 02-24-2019, 01:57 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
This is a probability problem, not a logic problem, but you're still wrong. If 90% of the population are right-handed, and left-handed people are three times as likely to own guns, then there are three times as many right-handed gun owners as left-handed gun owners, despite the left-handed people's higher preference for them.
In the subthread you're responding to "more likely to be racist" did NOT mean "more likely than 50%"; it meant "more likely than the general population."

But you do have a point. Probability problems have to be tackled with care. Even experts can sometimes fall for things like Simpson's Paradox. But in the relevant subthread we were dealing with a guy who didn't understand even the basics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Quote:
There are about 400 million guns in America owned by civilians.
How many are used to murder?
Out of the 400 million civilian guns in America, most have not been used to commit murder! Whippeee?
  #76  
Old 02-24-2019, 02:28 PM
Mk VII is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 2,942
In my country, 'Sensible restrictions' ended up as 'Turn them all in, Mister and Mrs Britain'.
  #77  
Old 02-24-2019, 03:04 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
"Don't compare fucking "gun deaths" compare murder rates (for which there are better records and stats anyway). "

Yeah, lessening the likelihood of suicide (and accidents) is something no government has business doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Was this a murder? This? Perhaps this? But surely this must be, no?

Again, dead is dead, whether by murder, suicide or accident. If I show a correlation between firearm deaths and gun restrictions, but you claim that the murder rates don't agree, then that simply means that the correlation is even stronger for suicide and accidents. Cool, I can live with reducing those even if it had no effect on murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Yes, but since we're discussing gun control, I'm not sure what they have to do with anything. I've shown a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and reduced firearm deaths, which was simply to counter your cherry picked data which you used to attempt to show that restrictions don't affect the outcomes.

Excellent. As soon as you provide me with better and credible alternate sources for firearm fatalities, I'll happily revisit the data to see if anything changes. In the meantime, I'll stick with the data I have.

Again, since you keep ignoring it, does the data show that there is a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and lower firearm related fatalities?
Wrong, there is a consistent correlation between access to guns and their involvement in suicides.

There is no consistent correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership.

The modality is all that consistently correlates.
  #78  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:06 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
WTF?

If we're just tossing out random place names, Barbados.
Japan is the proof that gun laws do not necessarily produce low suicide rates. Their rate is quite high- higher than the USA- and with just about the most restrictive gun laws.

There are other nations, also, similar.
  #79  
Old 02-24-2019, 04:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Wrong, there is a consistent correlation between access to guns and their involvement in suicides.

There is no consistent correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership.

The modality is all that consistently correlates.
Right- more guns do not mean more suicides. More guns just means more gun suicides.

Last edited by DrDeth; 02-24-2019 at 04:10 PM.
  #80  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:22 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Wrong, there is a consistent correlation between access to guns and their involvement in suicides.

There is no consistent correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership.

The modality is all that consistently correlates.
I'm glad you brought data to back that up. Oh, you didn't?

I did.

There is a strong correlation between per capita gun ownership by state and per capita gun deaths by state.

I'll let you and DrDeth tell us if that relationship is based on murders, suicides, accidents, or some combination of the above.
  #81  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
I'm glad you brought data to back that up. Oh, you didn't?

I did.

There is a strong correlation between per capita gun ownership by state and per capita gun deaths by state.

I'll let you and DrDeth tell us if that relationship is based on murders, suicides, accidents, or some combination of the above.
Bogus stats. and bogus conclusion, based upon it.

Look, yes, in states with more guns, there tends to be more gun suicides. But not more suicides. So, more guns do not = more suicides.
  #82  
Old 02-24-2019, 07:45 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
I'm glad you brought data to back that up. Oh, you didn't?

I did.

There is a strong correlation between per capita gun ownership by state and per capita gun deaths by state.

I'll let you and DrDeth tell us if that relationship is based on murders, suicides, accidents, or some combination of the above.
States with most guns
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-us-by-state/

States with most sucides
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...cide-rate.html


Oh no! There's no correlation.....


Yep more guns mean more gun deaths ....they don't mean higher homicides, suicides, or even premature deaths in general.

Guess we have to take the hard route and look at actual causal factors instead of the scary guns scapegoat.
  #83  
Old 02-24-2019, 08:05 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
States with most guns
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-us-by-state/

States with most sucides
https://www.beckershospitalreview.co...cide-rate.html


Oh no! There's no correlation.....


Yep more guns mean more gun deaths ....they don't mean higher homicides, suicides, or even premature deaths in general.

Guess we have to take the hard route and look at actual causal factors instead of the scary guns scapegoat.
Giving me two links and claiming no correlation is lazy as fuck. Also, total gun count doesn't really mean shit as one doesn't need all 50 guns stashed under their pillow to blow their brains out when a single gun will do just fine. So, let's do some actual correlation, without just tossing feces at the wall as you are doing.

Correlation between gun ownership rates and all methods of suicide

Hell, I'll calculate the PPMCC if you really want.
  #84  
Old 02-24-2019, 08:31 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Wow , cited yourself.....lol
Call me convinced

Last edited by Littleman; 02-24-2019 at 08:33 PM.
  #85  
Old 02-24-2019, 08:38 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Based on a survey with a sample size of 4000 nationally, no less, that's some pretty serious extrapolation there.

Last edited by Littleman; 02-24-2019 at 08:38 PM.
  #86  
Old 02-24-2019, 08:50 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Wow , cited yourself.....lol
Call me convinced
I didn't cite myself. I did the actual analysis, graphed it and published it. I even documented my data sources for both measures.
  #87  
Old 02-24-2019, 08:51 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Based on a survey with a sample size of 4000 nationally, no less, that's some pretty serious extrapolation there.
Since your previous post already showed your lack of expertise in statistical analysis (for fuck sake, you used per capita in one measure and raw counts in the other), I'm not going to waste my time educating you on sample size sufficiency, but what I will do is happily use whatever source of actual data you want for the ownership rates. 50 states, 50 numbers between 0 and 100. That's all I need and I'll redraw the same chart.

So, which gun ownership source would you like for me to use?
  #88  
Old 02-24-2019, 09:43 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners...ations-3325153

No need, just look at the top 5

Virgina #35 per capita suicide rate, #5 per capita gun ownership.

DC #2 per capita gun ownership, #51 per capita suicide rate

New Hampshire #3 PC gun ownership, #18 pc Suicide rate

Wyoming and new Mexico would be somewhat in the right neighborhood but your chart already looks like a blob rather than a line at this point.
  #89  
Old 02-24-2019, 09:58 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Btw those numbers are based in actual registration according to the ATF , not some miniscule survey of 80 people per state .
  #90  
Old 02-24-2019, 10:20 PM
bubba001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Its an argument a lot of people seem to be making. "If democrats abandon gun control, then rural whites will be more open to the party".

I disagree.

For one thing, gun control is fairly popular.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/58984...rictions-grows

But more importantly, guns are a symptom of something else. They are a symptom of white people who fear multiculturalism.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/



https://splinternews.com/the-simple-...s-g-1793860212



Whites who find multiculturalism threatening cling to guns because their America is dying. The America they feel they know (a white christian patriarchy of native born people) is changing and America is rapidly becoming browner, more secular, more muslim, more feminist, more immigrant, etc. They are attached to guns because guns help them feel safe in a world where they feel their national identity and sense of privilege is going away. Plus guns help them feel safe in a world full of scary out-groups (latino immigrant street criminals. Black urban street criminals. Foreign muslim terrorists. Liberal government. etc).

The democratic party is the party that embraces multiculturalism. The republican party is the party that rejects multiculturalism. Even if the democrats abandon gun control, everyone still knows the democrats are the pro-multiculturalism party. So why would abandoning gun control make these people like the democrats when the main reason they cling to guns is because they find pro-democratic policies threatening?

Basically saying 'I support changing America into something that makes you feel threatened, but I also support your right to own a gun to keep yourself safe from the threats our party is visiting on you" is not a winning argument. But thats the argument people are making for why the democrats should abandon gun control.

FWIW I'm not saying all whites who own guns are racist. But its a major factor in hostility to gun control among whites. I'm a liberal gun owner and I know lots of liberals who oppose gun control because they feel they need guns to keep themselves safe from the rise of neo-fascism. And there are people who need guns to deal with hunting animals or dealing with threatening feral animals. Or people who need them because they live in areas the police don't patrol well or they can't trust the police. So I'm not saying owning a gun = racist. But its a major factor. But having said that, these people wouldn't be affected by most forms of gun control anyway.

For me personally I don't even know where I stand on gun control. I feel unless we confiscate the 300+ million guns already out there, gun control won't make much of a difference. And that'll never happen. The virginia tech shooter had a pistol and regular magazines.

However the 1934 gun control act made getting fully automatic weapons, among other things, hard to get. So if we passed strict gun control on a national level it may make a difference, but not for several decades (when the current guns are trashed and you can't buy new ones).

One thing I see is that some of my neighbors ran out and bought pistols when the concealed carry law was loosened up in Michigan. I was asked to help a neighbor get some drywall from Lowe’s. He made a big show putting his gun on. I was laughing my ass off. He didn’t like my comments, but I talked to him about a year later, he hadn’t carried his pistol in quite awhile. It was like a status symbol. And the novelty wore off. I know of 2 other locals, after awhile, carrying 3 or 4 pounds of pistol and accessories got old. A lot of eye rolling from wives, also.
  #91  
Old 02-24-2019, 10:32 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,547
If you compare states where guns are legal and in large supply, to other states where, ha-ha, guns are also legal and in large supply, you are doing comparison wrong.

Try comparing countries with virtually few guns with countries (or states!) with relatively many guns. There are some outliers but if you do anough comparisons the overall trend is very clear with regard to gun deaths or gun klillings (whichever you want to discuss).
  #92  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
If you compare states where guns are legal and in large supply, to other states where, ha-ha, guns are also legal and in large supply, you are doing comparison wrong.

Try comparing countries with virtually few guns with countries (or states!) with relatively many guns. There are some outliers but if you do anough comparisons the overall trend is very clear with regard to gun deaths or gun klillings (whichever you want to discuss).
See, that's the point. "gun deaths" or "gun killings" is bogus.

Look, you can look at "gun suicides' and see places with more guns have more gun suicides. Not always, but there is some correlation. BUT, and this is the critical point- the places with more guns don't have more suicides.

So yeah, if there are a lot of guns, more people will choose a gun to kill themselves (which I feel is their right). But in places with more guns, more people dont choose to kill themselves. In places with almost no guns, like Japan, they just choose another way to kill themselves. Reducing guns won't reduce suicides.
  #93  
Old 02-25-2019, 12:51 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-owners...ations-3325153

No need, just look at the top 5

Virgina #35 per capita suicide rate, #5 per capita gun ownership.

DC #2 per capita gun ownership, #51 per capita suicide rate

New Hampshire #3 PC gun ownership, #18 pc Suicide rate

Wyoming and new Mexico would be somewhat in the right neighborhood but your chart already looks like a blob rather than a line at this point.
The above analysis has a FTAS1 of 9000 and a LOE2 of 0.

My chart had a PPMCC of 0.47 with a p-value < 0.0001. So, while you might think it looks like a blob, it's anything but.

While the data you provided has issues, as it's simply based on a count of the number of registered firearms and doesn't speak to the distribution thereof (if a single micropenis in Texas had all 588,696 firearms, the output would be the same as what you provided), it still shows correlation. PPMCC of 0.25 with a p-value < 0.0002.


I can do this all day



1Feces Tossing Accuracy Score
2Level of Effort
  #94  
Old 02-25-2019, 01:54 AM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Look, you can look at "gun suicides' and see places with more guns have more gun suicides. Not always, but there is some correlation. BUT, and this is the critical point- the places with more guns don't have more suicides.
Au contraire, states with a higher percentage of gun ownership have a higher incidence of suicides. Not gun suicide. Suicide. Period.
  #95  
Old 02-25-2019, 06:34 AM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Right because a survey of 80 People per state , less than one per county is far more reflective than actual registrations.
  #96  
Old 02-25-2019, 06:43 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Right because a survey of 80 People per state , less than one per county is far more reflective than actual registrations.
Dude, I used the data that YOU provided* in a response directly to you and there is still correlation. Put down the shovel.


*As noted the data that you gave me has plenty of issues, but hey, apparently there are only about 5 million firearms in the US. Who knew?
  #97  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:37 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC View Post
Dude, I used the data that YOU provided* in a response directly to you and there is still correlation. Put down the shovel.


*As noted the data that you gave me has plenty of issues, but hey, apparently there are only about 5 million firearms in the US. Who knew?
Are you counting 2 states as a correlation?
  #98  
Old 02-25-2019, 07:49 PM
DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Are you counting 2 states as a correlation?
No.

Before I waste any more time, can you give me your understanding of the term correlation as you are using it? I'm starting to feel like Inigo Montoya.
  #99  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:05 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
That would be a consistent rise in overall suicide rates In states which have a higher rate of gun ownership.

Which, would create a chart like your first one.
Not a crescent ish vertical line with a few outliers.
Which is textbook non-correlation.

So far almost every post you've made has been a deliberate attempt at misleading with semantics, or am attempt to cause your audience to conflate terms.

I'm not playing word games, the data just does not consistently support your theory.

National Research Counsel says what we've been telling you almost word for word.
"
States, regions, and countries with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide. There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide, but this association is more modest than the association between gun ownership and gun suicide; it is less consistently observed across time, place, and persons; and the causal relation remains unclear."


But if you claim to be a better analyst than all of theirs, you've got a big hill to climb to prove that.
  #100  
Old 02-25-2019, 08:08 PM
Littleman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,080
What I will give you is a wait period, though unconstitutional, actually made sense.

Studies do show many people purchase a gun for the purpose of suicide and that they are more likely to carry it out if done immediately.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017