JohnRich 4 #76 December 13, 2004 QuoteChicago's murder rate has declined by nearly 50% over the past two years. That's not much solace to the other 50% that are still dead. (I couldn't resist...) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #77 December 13, 2004 QuoteIf 1000 people had guns, they are more likely to have a larger number of accidents than a single person with a gun. Simple mathamatical probability. You would be right in suggesting that the accident likelyhood also has other factors involved (like public awareness / safety campaigns / general culture etc) but the primary influence still stands..... More guns = likely more accidents. Your first part is proven wrong by known facts. But then you hinted at the true answer: education. 1,000 people educated about gun safety can be less likely to have a gun accident then one yahoo who doesn't know proper gun handling. The fact is, there are more gun owners than ever in America, and fatal gun accidents have declined by 54% in 10 years. Those are the facts. Your theory is false, because it excludes those other factors. You can't claim an effect based upon just one factor, to the exclusion of all others. The NRA plays a large role in this gun safety education. You know - that evil gun lobby that the press loves to revile... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #78 December 13, 2004 If you increase the number of people with guns, you likely increase the number that are careful and educated as well as the number that are not so careful and injure themselves. It is really shortsighted to think that if the number of gun owners increases there will not be a % increase in the number of accidents. You cant make everyone smart and careful. you can give anyone a gun. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #79 December 13, 2004 BTW JohnRich, according to a today's press release (I will go back, check and let you know exactly which one, I think it was dpa/Reutters) victims of (the last 2) snipers for first time in US history will be able to claim for damages, amount in question is around 1.9 million Euros to be paid by "weapon dealers, weapon producers ". You surely heard about that. What could that mean for the future? Would like to hear your opinion on that. Christel dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #80 December 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteChicago's murder rate has declined by nearly 50% over the past two years. That's not much solace to the other 50% that are still dead. (I couldn't resist...) You are almost right. The dead don't actually care any more but their families may. Guns killed most of them. And I'm not patting myself on the back about it, either. The murder rate is still excessive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #81 December 13, 2004 Close, but not quite. They agreed to a settlement. Happens all the time. Otherwise they would go out of business every time someone tried to sue them for the actions of a third party. And in this particular case, this gun dealer was found to be negligent in securing their weapons. In other words, the guns were illegally obtained from them because of their negligence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #82 December 13, 2004 QuoteIt is really shortsighted to think that if the number of gun owners increases there will not be a % increase in the number of accidents. (sigh) Okay then, you tell me: How is it that gun accidents were reduced by 54% over the last 10 years? Do you believe that the National Safety Council statistics are a lie? Do you believe that the number of guns in circulation was drastically reduced? Please explain how this can happen in accordance with your theory. Since you refuse to believe anything I've thrown at you, the ball is now in *your* court. Prove your supposition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #83 December 13, 2004 Quotevictims of (the last 2) snipers for first time in US history will be able to claim for damages, amount in question is around 1.9 million Euros to be paid by "weapon dealers, weapon producers ". You surely heard about that. What could that mean for the future? That is a lower court verdict against only one gun dealer and one distributor. What it means for the future, is that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. There have been dozens of such cases filed in the last 10 years. None of them have succeeded. A gun shop which has a gun stolen is not responsible for murders which occur with that gun on the other side of the country. The person who pulled the trigger is responsible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #84 December 13, 2004 Quote(sigh) Okay then, you tell me: How is it that gun accidents were reduced by 54% over the last 10 years? (Double Sigh) As I said other factors affect the number of accidents... However, I would put money on the fact that if you doubled the number of gun owners and guns by waving a wand... the number of accidents would also increase maybe even proportionally.... as the same influencing factors (ie knowledge culture etc would be the same) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #85 December 14, 2004 QuoteDont agree. If 1000 people had guns, they are more likely to have a larger number of accidents than a single person with a gun. Simple mathamatical probability. And I'm telling you that statistics don't equal reality. There are more guns in teh US this year than last year, and there are fewer gun accidents this year than last year. Apparently your simply probability is too simple to describe reality.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #86 December 14, 2004 That would be becuase the ratios are not enough to show the increased probability... Ie.. it you have 90m guns... add a few million... and you have 700 accidents while preventing 10 accidents you have proved your point. However... If I have a million guns in the UK... and next to zero accidents.... was to increase the guns by 50 million... I guarantee you the accidents would increase. Like I said, there are other factors.... but more guns will increase the risk of more accidents for sure (when the appropriate % is added!) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #87 December 14, 2004 We have so few gun related deaths in the UK. I think if we introduced US gun laws here, the number of gun-related *accidental* deaths would probably exceed the current number of gun-related deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #88 December 14, 2004 QuoteQuote(sigh) Okay then, you tell me: How is it that gun accidents were reduced by 54% over the last 10 years? As I said other factors affect the number of accidents... That's not an explanation. If that's the best you can do, I can only conclude that you have no explanation. The fact is, gun ownership is up, and gun accidents are down. That contradicts your theory, and you have offered nothing to show how your theory can be true and still coincide with these facts. Conclusion: your theory is bunk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #89 December 14, 2004 QuoteConclusion: your theory is bunk. In your incorrect opinion Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #90 December 14, 2004 QuoteQuoteConclusion: your theory is bunk. In your incorrect opinion I'm still waiting for you to explain how the two contradictory things can possibly co-exist. Until you can do that, it's bunk. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #91 December 15, 2004 I'll copy it again so you can try again.... More guns ultimately increases the risk of accidents :- That would be becuase the ratios are not enough to show the increased probability... Ie.. it you have 90m guns... add a few million... and you have 700 accidents while preventing 10 accidents you have proved your point. However... If I have a million guns in the UK... and next to zero accidents.... was to increase the guns by 50 million... I guarantee you the accidents would increase. Like I said, there are other factors.... but more guns will increase the risk of more accidents for sure (when the appropriate % is added!) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #92 December 15, 2004 QuoteI'm still waiting for you to explain how the two contradictory things can possibly co-exist. Until you can do that, it's bunk. Actually, I'll try to make it easier for you.... Do you accept that the number gun owners is a part factor in the number of accidents? (ie if there was only one gun owner you would not have 700 deaths?!) If so, think of it as a simple equation. In those terms it doesnt matter how much you increase the number of guns = risk goes up somehow. You may reduce other factors to compensate... but maths lesson over ... More guns = more risk. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #93 December 15, 2004 QuoteMore guns = more risk. Does more skydivers = more skydiving fatalities? Over the last 20 years, the number of skydivers has doubled, but the number of fatalities has remained fairly constant. That means that we have reduced the *rate* of fatalities by about half. Now, according to your theory, skydiving fatalities should have doubled, to about 70 per year, instead of 35. The reason the total has remained fairly constant, despite twice as many skydivers, is improvements in equipment, training and education. I don't know why you have blinders on when it comes to those same factors regarding gun safety... Your theory is valid only when taken in isolation from all other factors, or when all other factors remain equal. In the real world, gun safety does not operate in isolation, nor do all other factors remain equal. Gun possession is at the highest levels ever. Gun accident deaths have plunged 54% in 10 years. These facts confirm what I'm talking about, and disprove what you're talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #94 December 15, 2004 Not at all what I am talking about.... and I will end with this - as I am getting bored of this one. I said if you increased the gun numbers - right now - the risk of accidents increases. If you increased the number of guns right now - that doesnt mean instantaniously better training / awareness / safety.... it means exactly that. Increase the gun number. So no. I am not considering other factors when I say More guns = more risk. I am talking about now . If gun laws were removed in the UK the number of guns would dramatically increase within a matter of days not years. If that were the case - the education and awareness of the public would not change overnight.... again - More guns = absolutely more risk of accident. If you are missing my point - I dont know how else to spell it out for you. Other factors play a part - yes, as they have over the last 10 years..... But if you add more guns NOW you get more risk NOW Likewise for skydivers NOW - if you suddenly signed up double the number tomorrow.... using the same rigs and training as current - the number of deaths would increase for sure. Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
