gun ownership in the USA

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

Funny how that DOESN'T hold true for DC, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

wow - even more vague a citation than usual.

Statistically significant doesn't mean the compare sets were legitimately defined, just that the differences were not likely to occur by chance.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

What he doesn't take into account is the possibility of himself being knocked off by criminals because he is unarmed.

Makes me wonder if he read this:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece

Quote

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera.

Yep, the gun-o-phobes want to depend upon the police to save their lives. But they fail to realize that a policeman's top priority is saving his own life, and that some citizen-stranger that he's never seen before isn't something that many cops are going to go out of their way to endanger their life over.

That's another good reason why citizens should take care of themselves, instead of depending upon others.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

But of course, you're not willing to cite that data here when you mention it. Why is that? Is there something about this study you don't want us to know?

There's also a proven record of declining accidental firearm fatalities over a hundred years, even while the number of guns in circulation has continuously climbed. More guns - Fewer accidents! Showing once again that gun deaths are not correlated to the number of guns in circulation.

Source: http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?AoI=generic&PRloc=common/PR/&PR=120704.cfm

A skydiving analogy:

According to your theory, since today there are twice as many active skydivers as there were 20 years ago, then we should also have twice as many annual fatalities. But instead, we have only half as many fatalities as 20 years ago. How can this be? Simple. The fatality rate is not a constant based upon the number of participants. There are other variables at work which you like to ignore. We have half as many fatalities today because we now have gear that is more safe, better training methods, and a better culture of safety.

Back to guns:

The same is true with gun accidents. Safer guns, and more safety awareness.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

But of course, you're not willing to cite that data here when you mention it. Why is that?

Because it is not true. The FBI has shown, again and again, that the violence is caused by criminal gangs. The FBI solution in Los Angeles was to reduce gangs. The old "prosecuting criminals and putting them in jail" tactic.

Has Diane Feinstein given up carrying a gun in her purse?

The rise in youth deaths in Chicago is blamed by police on criminal youth gangs. Gang killings of youth in Chicago were out of control during the beginning of the 2008.
The gun laws didn't change, the criminals did.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Of course, there's always this risk.

Perhaps you prefer the Mike Ditka approach to gun safety:

"I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended."

Source: http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/30/mike-ditka-nfl-should-prohibit-all-players-from-owning-guns/

Do you want to deny them from everybody, because of an accident by one?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

Funny how that DOESN'T hold true for DC, isn't it?

How do you know? What % of households in DC have guns (didn't say anything about LEGAL guns).

And you're STILL trying to compare states and nations with cities - (for shame).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

But of course, you're not willing to cite that data here when you mention it. Why is that? Is there something about this study you don't want us to know?

.

I've cited it before (but you conveniently forget). Here it is again:

www.cagved.org/CAGV%20OpEd%20Gun%20Death.pdf

www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/26/Gun_ownership_correlates_to_gun_deaths/UPI-65011209186884/


www.gunguys.com/?p=2793

www.livescience.com/strangenews/070112_gun_crimes.html

www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html

See also:
State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003

Matthew Miller, a, , David Hemenway, and Deborah Azraela,
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Social Science & Medicine
Volume 64, Issue 3, February 2007, Pages 656-664

Care to dispute them?


See also the attachment.


This is also interesting, and disputes the "50% of US households own guns" statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

But of course, you're not willing to cite that data here when you mention it. Why is that?

Because it is not true. .

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 87, Issue 6 974-978, Copyright © 1997 by American Public Health Association

The association between the purchase of a handgun and homicide or suicide.

P Cummings, T D Koepsell, D C Grossman, J Savarino and R S Thompson

Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.


OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether purchase of a handgun from a licensed dealer is associated with the risk of homicide or suicide and whether any association varies in relation to time since purchase. METHODS: A case-control study was done among the members of a large health maintenance organization. Case subjects were the 353 suicide victims and 117 homicide victims among the members from 1980 through 1992. Five control subjects were matched to each case subject on age, sex, and zip code of residence. Handgun purchase information was obtained from the Department of Licensing. RESULTS: The adjusted relative risk of suicide was 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4, 2.5) for persons with a history of family handgun purchase from a registered dealer. The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2 (95% CI = 1.3, 3.7). For both suicide and homicide, the elevated relative risks persisted for more than 5 years after the purchase. CONCLUSIONS: Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He also has to ignore the fact that about half of all American homes are armed, and have been for hundreds of years. If they were going to kill themselves off, it would have happened already by now. So that alone disproves his evolution theory.

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

Funny how that DOESN'T hold true for DC, isn't it?

How do you know? What % of households in DC have guns (didn't say anything about LEGAL guns).

*2007 UCR murders/100k numbers*
National average: 5.6 / 100k
Texas: 5.94 / 100k
Florida: 6.58 / 100k
Georgia: 7.52 / 100k
DC: 30.8 / 100k

Quote

And you're STILL trying to compare states and nations with cities - (for shame).

And you're still confusing the city with the Congressional district (which is treated as a state). Whine to the FBI - it's their stats (you know, the ones you like to use when you like what the numbers say). At least I'm not trying to blame it on the Congressmen and lawyers.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

You omitted to tell us what % of DC households have guns, so your post is MOOT

Quote

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

(not to mention that DC is NOT a state, regardless of how many times you try to tell us that it is. Last time I looked at a US flag there were still 50 stars on it)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[futuredivot 0]

Conservatives argue points. Liberals argue semantics

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

I love statistics

I don't know anyone who has died from a gunshot. I did know one guy that was murdered with a front end loader (see Keep USA Safer thread)--So, by my obseravtion, you are 100% more likely to be killed by an assailant using construction equipment rather than a firearm.


Oh, and I'd bet that if kallend were getting his ass whipped in an alley, he'd a lot rather see my hillbilly gun-toting ass come around the bend than some squealing candy ass calling 911-because when seconds cound, the cops are only minutes away.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Of course, there's always this risk.

Perhaps you prefer the Mike Ditka approach to gun safety:

"I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended."

Source: http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2008/11/30/mike-ditka-nfl-should-prohibit-all-players-from-owning-guns/

Do you want to deny them from everybody, because of an accident by one?

I doubt Mike Ditka (not unlike Chuck Norris) would be called a sniveling anything-phobe by anyone, at least not to his face. He's also a Republican who refers to himself as an "ultra-ultra-conservative" (see links below). So what do you suppose his motivation is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ditka#Politics

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/wickham/2004-07-19-wickham_x.htm

[happythoughts 0]

That makes perfect sense, but it is valueless when looking at the problem. When looking at the murder rate in Chicago, the FBI stated that the source of the problem is gangs.

The FBI is in the business of criminal activity.

The teenage gang members who are doing the shooting are not buying them legally. The Chicago gun ban is valueless.

Even Nancy Pelosi carries a gun in her purse.
She doesn't believe her own hype, she merely adopts a posture that looks good in the media.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You omitted to tell us what % of DC households have guns, so your post is MOOT

Illegal gun possession will always be undercounted relative to legal ownership.

But we do know that nearly all of the guns in DC are illegal, so the high death rate is quite significant.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

You omitted to tell us what % of DC households have guns, so your post is MOOT

Illegal gun possession will always be undercounted relative to legal ownership.

But we do know that nearly all of the guns in DC are illegal, so the high death rate is quite significant.

In comparing death rate with gun ownership, you need the gun ownership data. mnealtx is just throwing sand in the air to see if any gets in my eyes.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I love statistics

.

In that case you know that your ANECDOTE is not relevant.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Conservatives argue points. Liberals argue semantics

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

The meaning of words IS important.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
I am afraid there are too many "gun nuts" in this thread. Maybe we should leave them with their guns and let evolution do the rest.

Hola, David,

no need to be afraid: These only are usual suspects (on both sides, btw)

If you take a look on increasing numbers of firearms in private (US) hands, perhaps it does not need evolution. Perhaps only a smaller part of evolution, the natural selection. Sounds harsh, I know ...

Every illegal weapon once was a legal one, so numbers of illegal weapons will increase accordingly. That'll be the danger, which those gun jerks seem to forget and just deny.

salud

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Conservatives argue points. Liberals argue semantics

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

The meaning of words IS important.

well i have a few questions for you Mr. Kallend.

1. If guns kill people why do they need a person to operate them?

2. why do cities that ban guns still have murders by the guns that are banned?

3. where do the guns that are banned go?

4. Why does Nancy Polosi carry a gun but supports banning them?

5. if illegally held guns cause most of the murders, how does banning guns take them out of the criminals hands since they are only braking 1 more law. do these gun ban laws affect the criminal in anyway?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Conservatives argue points. Liberals argue semantics

How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?

The meaning of words IS important.

well i have a few questions for you Mr. Kallend.

1. If guns kill people why do they need a person to operate them?

Same could be asked about cluster bombs, torpedoes, nukes, sarin, weaponized anthrax, and anti-aircraft missiles. It's a stupid question.

Quote

2. why do cities that ban guns still have murders by the guns that are banned?

Because illegal guns are way too easy to obtain.

Quote

3. where do the guns that are banned go?

Gun heaven?

Quote

4. Why does Nancy Polosi carry a gun but supports banning them?

Ask her.

Quote

5. if illegally held guns cause most of the murders, how does banning guns take them out of the criminals hands since they are only braking 1 more law. do these gun ban laws affect the criminal in anyway?

Why ask me? Ask someone who advocates banning guns.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[millertime24 8]

Quote

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

One could also say that as the % of households that own cars increases the rate of automobile related deaths increases.

EDIT: Oh yeah here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Muff #5048

[kallend 2,027]

I have some questions for you, Dr. Sherman:

If guns prevent violent crime, why are there more gun homicides in states and nations that make access to guns easier?

If guns are good for us, why are there more gun accidents in places with more guns?

If guns are good for us, why are there more suicides in places with more guns?

If guns prevent crime and theft is a crime, how come over 300,000 guns are stolen every year?

If law abiding citizens with guns are good for society, how do you reconcile that with over 300,000 guns going from law abiding citizens into the hands of criminals every year?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

There is good (statistically significant) data showing that the rate of gun fatalities increases as the % of households owning guns increases.

One could also say that as the % of households that own cars increases the rate of automobile related deaths increases.

You could indeed, which is why you need a drivers test and a current license to drive an automobile on public roads, and the automobile needs to be registered with the state, and be insured against liability.

So I guess you are suggesting tests and licenses for gun owners, and mandatory registration and liability insurance for all guns. OK.


Edited to add in response to your edit - the data in your link does not support your statement.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.