All you need to know about guns and murder

The gun hating left has a much larger agenda, that much is clear. So when people with agenda start quoting stats, look out. I was watching CNN last night and they had a gun special. Fareed Zakaria, and what an idiot, hosted. Anyway, the point here is that there is one very salient reality that nobody in the gun control crowd will discuss because it doesn't fit their agenda. To grasp reality, first you must ask the correct question- does the presence of a gun make it more or less likely that I will be killed? I don't care how you kill me, that's completely irrelevant, but does that gun in your drawer change my risk of being murdered (comparisons of gun-only deaths between countries are spurious reasoning)? The answer of course depends on.... well you figure it out



Also lets look at suicide gun deaths in the USA, since suicidal is almost double intentional. Again, ask the right question- do guns make suicide more likely? If someone wants to commit suicide, gun control people claim that somehow death by gun is worse. The claim has no merit whatsoever, but of course they will still make it. There is no indication that the amount of guns in the USA makes the suicide rate higher, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

We are number 33 on the list, well below some very strict gun control nations like South Korea, and right next to England which also has strict gun control.

Is the conclusion not obvious by now?

other sources:

http://www.realclearscience.com/jou..._homicide_rates_by_race_in_the_us_106602.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

- - - Updated - - -

sorry about that plot, you'll have to click on it. How do I blow it up?

 

First, imaging.
I upload anything not already online to tinypic.com and link from there. If this was linked from an online source, in the future unclick the "Retrieve remote file and reference locally" and it will simply embed the image.

To your argument. Your chart separates "US Whites" and "US Blacks" so it is suspect. I would like to see its source.
You ask if the presence of a gun makes it more or less likely that you will be killed. Based on the unpredictability of the human condition and the efficiency of the weapon, of course it does. Carrying a machette or a hammer also increases the likelihood. You answer your own question saying that it depends... so I find the whole thing moot, other than to perhaps suggest that black people should not be allowed to have guns.

Do guns make suicides more likely? I think it doesn't take a lot of brains to say yes. It is, again, a very efficient killing tool. In snap moments of depression, inebriation, it is of course going to increase the likelihood of following through with such an idea due to the simplicity of operation. Most suicides are among the elderly. I think "the right question" is do we have a moral right to interfere with someones intent to kill themselves? I say no. I say if gramps wants to check himself out, die with some dignity, some control, rather than whither into their diaper and dementia, then as a humanitarian... a believer in freedom... they have that right. Being an American to me means being free. Free to endanger myself. Free to jump out of a perfectly good airplane or drive 200 miles an hour on a track... and it certainly includes my right to take my own life based on my determination.... but tangent aside... YES, I am more likely to make that decision with an easy to use tool, designed for the purpose, with a high success rate, in my possession.

Life in America is better than anywhere else in the world. We should have the lowest suicide rate in the world. We do not... and most of those deaths are at the end of a barrel. The conclusion is pretty obvious. The question is, is it actually a bad thing?

 

first- I created the chart. I guess I could try and magnify and save but I figured that was too much hassle. I don't use tinypic.com nor do I intend to. If there is actually a problem I will try and blow up, but clicking seems to work.

 

I tend to wonder who really is the idiot when 60 percent of U.S. homicides occur using a firearm, which is the 26th-highest rate in the world.

 

see link 1

.

Slow down, one item at a time. You wanted a quality discussion so lets have it, murder first.

Think harder about the chart. You made a few qualitative assertions with no data backup, the chart answers the question directly with no need for conjecture.

The data says one thing only, the murder rate is only dependent on race and/or culture. The difference in murder rate between white Americans and Europeans in negligible over a very large range of gun availabilities and some cases like Switzerland versus England, it actually show a negative correlation.

p.s. I am going to bed, take your time with a thoughtful response.

 

if you are not going to participate in an intelligent way, get out. This is the very thing Ctrl said we need to stop.

 

I have not seen your dataset, only your chart. It does not address the "murder rate" but focuses on the murder rate of blacks vs whites per capita. It does not address the underlying cause of murder but leaves the reader to assume that the poster believes they are simply "more savage". You did not ask me for data, you asked me for an evaluation based on your data. You asked me a question which you yourself answered... half supporting my answer... and imply causation. This argument... is much bigger... and seems to be the one you really want to have.

You ask the reader a question, not because you care about their answer, but to convey your own beliefs of causation, using correlation as your evidence. I don't care much for that.

1:12
[video=youtube;xmCjhEa20lE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmCjhEa20lE[/video]

You ask me for data to support my answer you do not care about, and if I were to do so it would only be making the same mistake you are making suggesting correlation is causation... for example...

That is as valid as your implicit argument. I am ready to have that argument but you need to make it, not imply it.

 

so much for bed, the reason I am posting so much is that I am sick, coughing is keeping me awake. Until the cough syrup sets in...

did you check the links? that is why I put them there. You can also check FBI stats for the American case.

murder rate per 100000 is the standard and proper variable, and separated by race only for the USA. I asked a very specific question: does the presence of a gun make murder more likely? In other words I want to know that if I am in your presence, does a gun in the closet put me in greater danger? The way to answer that question is to compare like populations with different availabilities of firearms and see if the murder rate per 100000 is affected.

Underlying cause is irrelevant for the question asked because there is no correlation. You can't even begin to answer that anyway since that is mostly psychology. The only issue whether or not the presence of firearms increases murder rates, and the answer is clear from the data because while correlation may not be causation, certainly causation means correlation and since there is no correlation then there is no causation. It's not even an interpretation. Now as to what I asked for, you simply said you would take the other side, which in this case means proving my conclusions wrong.

This exercise did however reveal one profound correlation. Murder is dependent strongly on race and culture, which means when it come to murder America does not have a gun problem, America has a minority problem. Causation, or why they behave that way, is not really important since they do it everywhere in the world.

Reading my state of mind? why don't you simply just take the other side as you said you would? remember you picked the thread

yes, I do ask for data supporting conclusions, or else the conclusions are arbitrary, and I made no such mistake

 

Most interesting!! SK has 1 gun per hundred people. And cons beat their head everytime I suggest withdrawing all US troops from SK. The SK people apparently don't think they are in any danger, so why do cons keep up the farce!??

 

Race has nothing to do with it. Most blacks live in towns run by Democrats. Democrat run towns are more dangerous. All of the most dangerous cities are Democrat, NY was the most dangerous, until Giuliani then it fell to 40th something, want to bet 5 years from now it starts to reverse the other way now that they have a lefter in office? Poverty will be roughly the same, racial makeup etc... just government will change. Look at a crime rate chart for Detroit, and take a guess what year the Democrats took over. I bet you get it right. The reason is simple, if you try to do everything you will end up doing nothing effectively. When Detroit was losing citizens and seeing spiking crime, they opened a theme park Auto World to entertain rowdy youth. It closed that year. Most people would have hired cops.

- - - Updated - - -

Guns are legal in every one of the 100 safest neighborhoods in America.

 

Your chart has little to do with the availability of guns. It does not take into account dispersal, just total number. Me having 15 guns does not increase the likelihood that I will murder someone by 15. To follow your math you would have to believe that either that is the case, or that 90% of the population is armed, including children. That does not suggest "availability". About 1/4 of the population own "guns". How many guns the person owns has nothing to do with the likelihood that they will kill, yet it is one of two vectors on your homemade chart. Your question was does the easy access to a gun increase the likelihood that a homicide will occur, than if there was not. The answer is yes. It is a detached instrument. A woman is more likely to be successful attacking a man with a firearm than a hammer. That alone increases likelihood. I will go on if you need further evidence, though it on its own definitively answers the question.

Your raw murder rates do not take into account environment. They do not take into account war. They do not take into account government or corrections. They are ignorant of the circumstances which breed, or prevent murder. It is just number of guns and number of murders. Number of purses and number of prostitutes is equally uninteresting.

Your assumptions are not facts. Do not presume to tell me what I can or cannot argue, or by what methods I can use. Your data is faulty. Your conclusion is wrong.

It did not "reveal" anything. It was the entire point of the thread, and you refuse to address causation. Causation is always important... and your last sentence suggests that it is inherent. If causation were not important, you never would have made this thread. You think it is genetic. Just (*)(*)(*)(*)ing say it so we can have an honest debate. Quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)footing around.

It isn't exactly War and Peace. The quote above this demonstrates I am accurate. I am taking the other side... you are just not being genuine about yours. I am trying to cut through the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and get to your underlying argument. I can handle both at once.

You are asking a psychological question. I don't much care if you get that. "If a tool designed to kill is available, are you more likely to commit to a killing?" Presuming the underlying psychology is such that one is likely to do so, the ease of availability and use of such a tool is a factor requiring reasoning... there is no raw data to demonstrate this outside of the realm of psychology.

Your mistakes are using faulty data, inferring causation, and refusing to accept psychological answers to a psychological question. It is a question of reason, and feasibility. There is a reason it is called the great equalizer. That reason is the answer to your first blatant question. Now why do we do what you came here for, and discuss race.

 

So you would rather ignore facts to have what you consider is an intelligent debate? And you have the gall to complain when I quote them?

 

When one considers your OP, it seems intelligent participation was not the intent. You seem to be against people using stats to make a case....then create your own to make a case.

It is blatantly clear that a Gun is required to create Gun violence. It is equally clear that pulling a trigger is far more convenient and effective than drinking poison or popping pills if one wishes to suicide.

 

It is also clear that one needs a motor vehicle, or in some cases a horse, to get a DUI. And since more folks are killed and injured via automobiles maybe, for the public good, we should all have to ride public transportation.

 

Because most of them have never been to North Korea?

 

When were cars designed to kill people? If someone wants to kill me are they going to drive at me or use a gun? Is it easier and more convenient to kill myself with a Ford or with a Glock?

 

the gun ownership rate has little to do with the availability of firearms? That puts you at odds with just about everyone and quite curious since you seem to rely only on your own intuition to come to conclusions. Your intuition says that gun ownership rate has nothing to do with availability, that's on you to prove beyond simple assertion since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

red herring

what math? I simply plotted data with no such assumptions

I thought you were taking the opposite side? I agree, I've said it many times

Now you contradict yourself, you just said that how guns I own has nothing to do with whether or not I kill, now you claim the exact opposite. Ownership of 1 gun = easy access.

They exclude war, but beyond that, you are making my case, that is that culture has much more to do with murder rate than guns. A gang culture for instance will be more dangerous. I don't want to normalize that out, for that is precisely the point.

The data is not faulty, the data is simply data with error bars and everything. If your only recourse is to claim faulty data and some unproven superior intuition, then you have nothing.

I don't know how to make this clear to someone without the ability to understand - without correlation, causation is meaningless.

There is only one correlation on the chart and it is irrefutable. Non-whites murder at higher rates than whites.

Then gun control people need to give up right now, for they are claiming the exact opposite, that the data shows ownership rate is causal to murder.

Your mistake is that you are misrepresenting me, you don't understand that there is no correlation and therefore no causation, and that your pop-psychological reasoning is the final word.

The point is that we don't have a gun problem when one parses the problem correctly. I guess you are waiving the white flag?

 

It is also blatantly clear you do not understand the OP, therefore your comment is drivel. You are bringing down the thread, so nick off

 

As stated....you do not actually want input. Added to this you are a very unpleasant individual to play with.

I'll just do as you requested, and uh...."Nick Off".

IGNORE

 

Your chart is flawed because it doesn't address WHO has the guns, just the gross amount. It would be as if you included Norway's military stocks and tried to draw conclusions from that. Guns are not available TO 90% of the population just because there is a gun in the US available FOR 90% of the population. Do you not understand that? An accurate vector would be homes with guns. Take Belize, a natural born citizen can have a gun, but they are very expensive, so there are not 5 guns per home, but about 1/4 of the homes could have guns. Your chart, is utterly useless. I am sorry if that fact hurts your feelings, but I don't know how to make it any clearer.

You do not understand what I was saying at this point, so I will not belabor the point because of your continued misunderstanding.

How many guns does not matter, whether or not 1 gun is accessible is what matters. Don't you worry about how much thought I have to give to this argument. I got me in check.

They do not exclude warring tribes... if one group runs down a village hacking everyone to bits with a machete, that just goes under murder. Lesser developed countries are not as fastidious record keepers as the US. I am not making your case, I am calling your dataset (*)(*)(*)(*). Culture is not the ONLY contributing factor, but of course it is A factor. Your arguments flaw is ignorant oversimplification, because it suits the underlying argument you want to make, but seem afraid to.

I have demonstrated why your data is faulty. Your comprehension notwithstanding.

That is inaccurate. You are attempting to imply causation through correlation, eg black skin. Gangbangers are equally likely to commit murder regardless of skin color. Doctors are equally unlikely to commit murder, regardless of skin color. The core of your argument, if you ever find the balls to wage it, will be that blacks are predisposed to be gangbangers, and my rebuttal, if you ever find the balls to wage it, will be that causation is due to other factors, where you will then bring in worldwide statistics. I am 30 steps ahead of your argument, so sack up already and lets have it.

Oh... there it is... finally. Are Asians white? Because they murder at lower rates than whites... so... consider that irrefutable correlation refuted. Let's instead address the point you have been trying to assert this whole time.

Which do you believe has a stronger correlation to murder... socioeconomic status, or color?

 

You assume availability MUST mean access instantaneously. It does not, availability means how easy is it to acquire a firearm. You are arguing against known reality, it is in fact quite easy to obtain a firearm in the US and that has been the longstanding argument of gun control folks. For instance, trade shows would sell to anyone. If I am able to amass 100 guns in my home, that means availability is pretty damn good.

Everyone uses the gun ownership rate as a measure of availability, everyone except you. Not that that fact makes it absolutely correct, just that someone may have discovered your 'insight' by now.

 

self contradictory, 0 and 1 are numbers, and address the 'how many' question

exe:

Joe: "Alice how many guns do you have?"
Alice: "I have zero"
Joe: "Mark, how guns do you have?"
Mark: "I have one"

It is nonsensical to claim both that the number of guns doesn't matter, but that the difference between zero and 1 does.

warring tribes = culture

You made non-testable assertions, that is not a demonstration.

First the non-correlation refers to the plot of ownership rate versus murder rate, therefore there is no causation. Secondly I only pointed out a correlation, I did not speculate if cause can be discerned. You claim you can discern the cause which is curious since you lectured me that correlation does not imply a cause. If you want to prove a causual relationship, at least you admit a correlation, but that is another topic so save it for after we have settled the first question.

you got me, Hispanics and blacks murder at greater rates, east Asians at comparable rates.

secondly, you are creating a false choice since socioeconomic status is correlated with race.

 

All you need to know about guns and murder, is if someone commits murder with a gun, they should be hung in public. Seeing the animal that killed someone with a gun twitching on the end of a rope would be a good deterent.

 

I wonder if you have ever heard of reality?

We have this silly thing called judicial justice, which kinda stops folks from lynchings.

I prefer the firing squad...guilty of murder....walked next door to a concrete ampitheater...blindfolded in front of seven guys with guns, only two with actual bullets and no one knows who.


End game.

 

0 is a null set. It is a mathematical construct and does not apply to the material. Number of guns means number of guns. 0 guns is not a number of guns it is a null set required for higher maths. If this is as strong as you get, you aren't going to like this much. My argument is that the volume of guns matters not at all as it applies to your question, it is a binary equation. Either there is a gun available, or there is not. The only accurate way to try and support your assertion would be households where a gun is available, by country.

We are engaged in more wars in more places than any tribe on Earth. This does not help your argument.

I demonstrate the falsehood of your dataset. 90 out of 100 Americans do not have guns. 90 out of 100 households do not have guns. You can keep insisting you are right if you choose, but it is a fact, and it is certainly testable... but what a waste of time.

You have not provided an ownership rate. Again... number of purses to number of prostitutes by country does not correlate to (*)(*)(*)(*). It is just data.

Socioeconomic status in this country is correlated to historical cultural development based on legal status of persons. My ancestors had assets. Shaniqua's ancestors were assets. Again your implication is that this is genetic predisposition. When you are ready to abandon your bad data and discuss the variables which lend themselves to the trending you are TRYING to correlate... lemme know.