gun owners

[DMC]

The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.

You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.

What's your claim?

You're saying that more guns = lower gun related homicide rate. So if you want a lower gun related homicide rate, buy more guns. If you just want lower overall gun related homicide numbers, no matter the change in population, what do you do then?

You're inferring things Boutons didn't say. If what Boutons says is correct, If a town has 10K people, 8000 guns in town and has a gun related violence of 12 per year, if one person bought 4000 guns, the numbers the following year should rise by 50% to indicate the number of total guns in the town since more guns = more gun related violence.

Who had the highest number of gun related homicides in the US in 2010?

California!

Who had the lowest?

Vermont!

One state allows open carry sans permit, which would that be?

So then how do you explain this? Is California a more dangerous place than Vermont even though Vermont allow open carry?

What is the gun related violence rate for people with concealed carry or open carry permits? How do they jive with people who don't even legally own a firearm?

See anything interesting about number of guns and gun crime?

[Spurminator]

You're saying that more guns = lower gun related homicide rate.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.

You're inferring things Boutons didn't say. If what Boutons says is correct, If a town has 10K people, 8000 guns in town and has a gun related violence of 12 per year, if one person bought 4000 guns, the numbers the following year should rise by 50% to indicate the number of total guns in the town since more guns = more gun related violence.

Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

[TheSanityAnnex]

The graph doesn't answer that either, though. It should show a line for total gun homicides if that's what you're arguing. Just because the rate went down doesn't mean total gun homicides went down.

You're accepting different definitions of "more" for the same graph to best suit your argument.

Total gun homicide graphin link. It follows the same line as the decline in rate.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

[TheSanityAnnex]

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

[DMC]

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.



Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

[DMC]

No, I'm not. I'm saying the graph is misleading because it compares a % to a total.



Pick a lane, dude.

boutons said "more guns means more gun violence," as you quoted. When I pointed out that TSA's graph showed rate vs. raw numbers, you argued that "more guns" meant more total gun purchases. That's fine. But now you're telling me that "more gun violence" means a higher rate of gun violence, so you're the one doing the inferring.

There are two meaningful ways to present a chart in response to "more guns means more gun violence."

1. Total guns purchased vs. total acts of gun homicides over time
or
2. Gun ownership rate vs. gun homicide rate

Does more guns = more gun related violence? yes or no

More guns = raw number

More gun related violence = rate, else population skews the result.

Rate accounts for the fact that increase in population isn't accounted for.

[Spurminator]

1993-2011
Total guns purchased +56%
Total gun homicides -39%

Thanks.

[Spurminator]

Does more guns = more gun related violence? yes or no

Not necessarily.

More guns = raw number

More gun related violence = rate, else population skews the result.

Rate accounts for the fact that increase in population isn't accounted for.

"More guns" could also be skewed by population. That's my point. Population increase needs to be factored into either both or neither.

[Spurminator]

It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

That's totally false.

Graphs aren't about a yes or a no. Even if the conclusion you draw from that graph is the correct conclusion, it doesn't mean the graph is made the right way.

[Spurminator]

The graph on the right is interesting... Related to my earlier point that more guns purchased may not necessarily mean more people own guns.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...-americas-guns

[DMC]

Not necessarily.



"More guns" could also be skewed by population. That's my point. Population increase needs to be factored into either both or neither.

Boutons said it does, always and always has.

Also.... "more guns" isn't skewed by "more people". If there are 300 million guns, having 350 million guns is more guns. It doesn't matter if you have 2x as many people. The statement "more guns" is satisfied by a larger overall number of guns. The statement never mentioned more individuals with guns or people at all. It assumes people are victims of sheer numbers of guns.

If the gun numbers can increase yet gun related violence doesn't, that says Boutons comment is false.

If the population increases and gun numbers stay the same but gun violence increases, that doesn't support Bouton's claim.


So you, pick a lane.

[boutons_deux]

Even if US gun homicide number is declining (except if you're black murdered by cops), it's ridiculously higher than all other industrial countries, which is my irrefutable (by rational people) point.

[DMC]

Even if US gun homicide number is declining (except if you're black murdered by cops), it's ridiculously higher than all other industrial countries, which is my irrefutable (by rational people) point.

Why are you lumping the entire country into one pile when the numbers are available to show which states skew the totals? They are mostly poor, uneducated states, not much different than some 3rd world countries.


Basically you had your comment shoved up your liberal ass.

[DMC]

That's totally false.

Graphs aren't about a yes or a no. Even if the conclusion you draw from that graph is the correct conclusion, it doesn't mean the graph is made the right way.

mis·lead·ing
ˌmisˈlēdiNG/
adjective
giving the wrong idea or impression.


How is what I said totally false when the definition is exactly what I said?

It's only misleading if it gives you the wrong impression. Did it give the wrong impression that more firearms /= more firearm related homicides and if so, is that wrong, or do you think the graph simply doesn't prove it?

[CosmicCowboy]

The graph on the right is interesting... Related to my earlier point that more guns purchased may not necessarily mean more people own guns.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...-americas-guns

That is a hard statistic to tie down. People just won't admit it in a survey. Call my house and ask if I have any guns? Who are you and no I don't have guns in my house.

[DMC]

My personal experience (quite a lot with gun owners) is that more and more guns are owned by fewer and fewer people. I know people who buy a new gun almost every week. They talk about guns, shop for guns and have safes full of them. I know people who owned 3 or more and sold them all because you either are a gun person or you aren't. Hunters often keep their hunting equipment (guns are equipment after all) if they still hunt but don't care for collecting guns. Then you have people who have a row of AR-15s, and all the way up to people with transferable subguns and even the museum level collectors with tanks and AA guns. I know people who do all of that, and as I've grown older, more and more people either have several or have no guns.

[boutons_deux]

My personal experience (quite a lot with gun owners) is that more and more guns are owned by fewer and fewer people. I know people who buy a new gun almost every week. They talk about guns, shop for guns and have safes full of them. I know people who owned 3 or more and sold them all because you either are a gun person or you aren't. Hunters often keep their hunting equipment (guns are equipment after all) if they still hunt but don't care for collecting guns. Then you have people who have a row of AR-15s, and all the way up to people with transferable subguns and even the museum level collectors with tanks and AA guns. I know people who do all of that, and as I've grown older, more and more people either have several or have no guns.

The average gun owner, a few years ago, owned 9+ guns. ing sicko perverts.

[Spurminator]

Boutons said it does, always and always has.

I don't care about boutons. I already said he's unhinged and hyperbolic. You asked for my take so I gave it to you.

Also.... "more guns" isn't skewed by "more people". If there are 300 million guns, having 350 million guns is more guns. It doesn't matter if you have 2x as many people. The statement "more guns" is satisfied by a larger overall number of guns. The statement never mentioned more individuals with guns or people at all. It assumes people are victims of sheer numbers of guns.

More consumers in the marketplace is objectively a relevant variable in more of any consumer good being added to the marketplace.

This isn't even worth arguing.

[CosmicCowboy]

I confess I am attracted to very accurate rifles. ARS don't do anything for me.

[Spurminator]

That is a hard statistic to tie down. People just won't admit it in a survey. Call my house and ask if I have any guns? Who are you and no I don't have guns in my house.

I highly doubt the steep decline on that graph is explained by an increase in paranoia over gun surveys.

But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies could be done on the kinds of questions we are asking.

[DMC]

I don't care about boutons. I already said he's unhinged and hyperbolic. You asked for my take so I gave it to you.



More consumers in the marketplace is objectively a relevant variable in more of any consumer good being added to the marketplace.

This isn't even worth arguing.

Not for the comment I was debating. I have no idea what you're trying to debate.

[boutons_deux]

[QUOTE=Spurminator;8850729But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies ...[/QUOTE]

BigGun/NRA owns enough Congress people to have blocked all kinds of gun violence research, and blocked even having a useful database on guns and gun violence so tracing ciminals' guns is futile. Pure madness for profit, a sign of a sick society under the heel of the corporatocracy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Just kill yourself, boo. Winning is going to drive you mad.

[DMC]

I highly doubt the steep decline on that graph is explained by an increase in paranoia over gun surveys.

But it would be nice if we knew for certain about gun ownership so studies could be done on the kinds of questions we are asking.

We went down that road.

Why do you need the studies, just to have debates?

[Spurminator]

We went down that road.

Why do you need the studies, just to have debates?

Debates are more valuable when they're backed by data. Otherwise it's all hypothetical and philosophical bull .