|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 3:05:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 3:09:23 GMT
And this one especially is for elaine to analyze.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 3:11:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 3:14:28 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 3:36:09 GMT
You know all these little charts and graphs are cute. And I'm sure the information showing the US isn't as bad as other countries is a great comfort to the families of the loved ones killed by guns for no other reason they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Comparisons do nothing but offer a source of excuses for not doing anything and just keeping the status quo.
What is a truth is 33,000+ innocent people killed year by guns is unacceptable.
What is a truth is the more guns "out" there, doesn't matter if they are legal or illegal, the 33,000 number will rise.
And I for one think that's unacceptable and I don't need any charts or graphs or comparisons to tell me what I already know. I'm wondering how high that 33,000 + a year number will have to rise before the majority of Americans think that it is unacceptable and decide to do something about it. I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 4, 2016 3:50:53 GMT
And this one especially is for elaine to analyze. ? ? ? What do you want me to analyze?you lost me a number of charts ago when you started comparing us to 3rd World countries where drug cartels run the government. Who is the drug cartel equivalent here in the US - the NRA? Or someone else? And if South America and Mexico is so awesome in terms of actual death rates, why would we want to build a wall? You have completely lost me as to the point of your graphs, and your responses that are within quote boxes making it difficult to determine what are your words and what are someone else's. If you could ask me a direct question, I'd be more than happy to answer - as to what you have been posting, I am clearly stupid, because I have no clue what you are stating, nor what you are asking me.
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Jul 4, 2016 4:32:21 GMT
So we have the most guns (112/100 people) and you want to compare our murder rate to a South American country that is on the UN's list of "least developed?"
Apples to oranges.
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Jul 4, 2016 4:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 4, 2016 13:32:19 GMT
You know, lefty, I like you, but whatever source you're getting all this from is making a lot of assumptions and is obviously coming from a very pro-gun bias. And that's fine. But I just don't have the energy to argue today against a source that claims I've said things I've never said. I will stand by what I actually said, which is that you cannot be shot, or have a family member shot, with a gun you don't own. Whether intentionally or accidentally. Nor can you have that gun used against you by a criminal, or escalate a situation that might have ended without gunfire.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jul 4, 2016 13:55:49 GMT
1. Politifact - whether you agree with overall "truthiness" from them or not, it doesn't take a statistics degree to look at what Lott was claiming and to see that he was the one whose methodology was suspect. I would prefer to argue the facts of that claim rather than delve into an overall analysis of Politifact here. I don't know about you, but I approach every source of information with my own fact-checking, regardless of whether it happens to agree with me or not, and that includes Politifact. 2. There's a lot of incorrect assumptions about what gun control advocates believe in the article about comparing murder rates to "developed" countries. I have never suggested that we should be compared to places like Sweden or Luxembourg, which are, I agree, very different from the US. I have consistently compared us to the UK, Australia, France and Germany, which are culturally diverse, democratic countries with stable economies that are not controlled by drug cartels. And I still think that comparison is a lot more valid than comparing us to Mexico or Venezuela. 3. With all due respect, did you actually read that VPC paper? I don't think it's really arguing your side of the point here.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2016 15:09:00 GMT
Okay, I'll bite.
Your researcher decided that if we're "devoted" to looking only at developed countries, we should use the UN's Human Development Index (HDI) as a metric.
(The HDI measures life expectancy, education, and income per capita.)
Therefore, on a list of more than 188 countries, he chose the countries with these rankings:
8. U.S. 9. Canada 30. Estonia 37. Lithuania 40. Argentina 42. Chile 45. Latvia 50. Russia 50. Belarus 52. Uruguay 55. Bahamas 59. Bulgaria 60. Panama 67. Cuba 69. Costa Rica 71. Venezuela 72. Turkey 74. Mexico
-So, leaving out the US and Canada, he used a range of what he calls middle-income countries. -Their HDI rankings fall between #30 and #74. -However, he chose only 16 countries between #30 and #74 and left out 29 countries.
(He was technically honest, though. He wrote "Let's use other countries with HDI numbers similar or higher [to Turkey and Mexico]." He never said, "Let's use ALL other countries..." Nevertheless: very misleading, and, of course, makes one wonder about the gun violence statistics in the excised countries.)
He should have used all countries from #1 (or even the US at #8) to #74. But he's decided (I gleaned from subsequent posts) that we have very little in common with Western and Central European countries and mono-ethnic Asian countries. Okay...I disagree, but I'll go with the flow. I can keep reading if he goes down his path of comparing us only to countries with similar HDIs as Mexico and Turkey. The problem is he was very selective even within the category of countries that he was championing - and selectivity in research samples is what he's opposing in the first place.
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2016 15:12:49 GMT
(Continued)
Plus, I have a hard time going down ANY path with a guy who says this:
Yes, I am a gun control advocate - but no, I will not "admit" to considering everyone outside the developed world as too dysfunctional or sub-human to bear comparison to my country.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jul 4, 2016 15:30:24 GMT
(totally off topic: AmeliaBloomer I am digging the patriotic baby bloomers... )
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Jul 4, 2016 15:42:20 GMT
(totally off topic: AmeliaBloomer I am digging the patriotic baby bloomers... ) Thank you! I went rifling through my computer picture file closet to find the pair I wore last year, but I must have deleted them donated them to Goodwill. Had to go "shopping" again....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2016 22:27:02 GMT
1. Politifact - whether you agree with overall "truthiness" from them or not, it doesn't take a statistics degree to look at what Lott was claiming and to see that he was the one whose methodology was suspect. I would prefer to argue the facts of that claim rather than delve into an overall analysis of Politifact here. I don't know about you, but I approach every source of information with my own fact-checking, regardless of whether it happens to agree with me or not, and that includes Politifact. 2. There's a lot of incorrect assumptions about what gun control advocates believe in the article about comparing murder rates to "developed" countries. I have never suggested that we should be compared to places like Sweden or Luxembourg, which are, I agree, very different from the US. I have consistently compared us to the UK, Australia, France and Germany, which are culturally diverse, democratic countries with stable economies that are not controlled by drug cartels. And I still think that comparison is a lot more valid than comparing us to Mexico or Venezuela. 3. With all due respect, did you actually read that VPC paper? I don't think it's really arguing your side of the point here. 1. You brought up Politifact, but okay we'll put them aside now and look at your claim of Lott. The only way you can claim Lott's methodology is suspect is if you pretend the purpose of his research ISN'T on "the multiple victim, public shootings that reach instant worldwide news coverage". To say he's leaving out other shootings that have nothing to do with his research makes his methodology suspect, certainly makes your (and Politifact's -sorry) attempt to discredit him, suspect. It certainly would seem it IS Politifact. 2. That point in the article was addressing what the majority of gun advocates believe and have said, but I understand if your ideas are different and more refined, so it doesn't apply to you. But it does apply to many. 3. That was in response to your claim that murders and other crimes involving guns outweigh defensive gun use. So yes, VPC DOES say defensive gun use happened at least 235,700 times in a 4 year period. That's over 50,000 times a year and as LeftTurnOnly pointed out, those are just the times that were reported. So we see defensive use of guns IS well over the 12,000 gun homicides that happen every year.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 5, 2016 0:09:07 GMT
Gia, we've been through this many times. I get my information on our murder rate (not just shooting rate) from the UNDOC and compare us to other countries with similar political and economic situations, like England, France, Canada and Australia, because unrest and instability have been shown to drastically increase crime, so comparing us to places like Mexico and Brazil is not valid. Numerous academic studies from places like the NEJM have shown that you are anywhere from 5 to 7 times more likely to be injured or killed by a gun if you own one compared to someone who does not own one, and from the NCBI show that you are many times more likely to be shot by your own gun, or have a family member shot by it, than to use it in self defense . I'm not going to go find all the links for you again - you've been shown the information and simply prefer to believe something else, which is your right. To be honest, I am very suspect of any "facts and statistics" put out by the pro-gun lobby because they have something to sell. The NRA and its legislative action arm receives billions from the gun industry, which is obviously in the business of selling guns. Health organizations and crime statistics organizations have nothing to gain by twisting numbers - except perhaps saving some lives. That's how I choose who to believe. Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Where on the VPC site does it give that number? I have looked over the site and cannot find this 50,000 per year figure. Or anything close to it. They do say it is amazing how LITTLE guns are used in self-defense: So, if you are claiming that there are 50,000 defensive gun uses per year, and the VPC has found that more guns are stolen than used in self-defense, so you are also claiming that more than 50,000 guns per year are stolen?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 17:45:15 GMT
Referring to your other post... As far as Politifact not having something to gain by twisting the truth, apparently they must, because they have been caught doing it so often. The idea that people who don’t own a gun can’t kill themselves with a gun seems like a pretty common sense thing to me, but apparently some believe that this proves guns are not worth having to defend yourself. The question to ask: does the accidental death rate increase in households with firearms? That would be newsworthy and an actually effective argument if it were true. But it isn’t. Firearms-related accidental deaths are so STATISTICALLY insignificant that even if we were to outlaw all firearms and confiscate every single one, we wouldn’t notice a difference. (that's not to say ANY death is insignificant - statistically speaking only) The underlying concept is that more guns equal more accidental deaths. Gun ownership has been rising for decades and there’s been a spike in gun sales since 2008, so there should be more firearms related fatalities, right? At least, that would be the case if that hypothesis were correct. But… Accidental gun deaths are on the decline. Even with a boom in firearms sales, there are fewer and fewer firearms related accidental deaths. Therefore, having a gun in the house does not necessarily put you at a greater risk for killing yourself. As for the statement that defensive gun uses are outweighed by murders and other crimes involving guns, even the Violence Policy Center puts the number of defensive gun uses in the United States at over 50,000 per year. So we'll have to agree to disagree. Where on the VPC site does it give that number? I have looked over the site and cannot find this 50,000 per year figure. Or anything close to it. They do say it is amazing how LITTLE guns are used in self-defense: So, if you are claiming that there are 50,000 defensive gun uses per year, and the VPC has found that more guns are stolen than used in self-defense, so you are also claiming that more than 50,000 guns per year are stolen? It's the page above the page that you quoted. It's not "me claiming". VPC's own numbers says: Self Protective Behavior - Threatened or attacked with a firearm - 235,700 times in a 4 year period. That comes to well over 50,000 times a year. If they find that number rare, well, what does that say about the 12,000 number, of gun homicides per year? That they're ASTONISHINGLY rare?
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 5, 2016 18:21:19 GMT
Where on the VPC site does it give that number? I have looked over the site and cannot find this 50,000 per year figure. Or anything close to it. They do say it is amazing how LITTLE guns are used in self-defense: So, if you are claiming that there are 50,000 defensive gun uses per year, and the VPC has found that more guns are stolen than used in self-defense, so you are also claiming that more than 50,000 guns per year are stolen? It's the page above the page that you quoted. It's not "me claiming". VPC's own numbers says: Self Protective Behavior - Threatened or attacked with a firearm - 235,700 times in a 4 year period. That comes to well over 50,000 times a year. If they find that number rare, well, what does that say about the 12,000 number, of gun homicides per year? That they're ASTONISHINGLY rare? 2007-2011 is a 5 year period. You left out the important that that this is in response to 30,000,000 (that is MILLION) violent crimes - so firearms were only used defensively in 0.8% of cases - making it extremely rare. And in 85 Million property crimes, firearms were only used defensively in 0.1% of them. So, the notion that guns are a common means of self-defense is bunk - they are used for self-protection in less than 1% of ALL crimes. Total numbers and and percentages are important when interpreting stats so that one doesn't misinterpret what is being said.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 19:05:11 GMT
It's the page above the page that you quoted. It's not "me claiming". VPC's own numbers says: Self Protective Behavior - Threatened or attacked with a firearm - 235,700 times in a 4 year period. That comes to well over 50,000 times a year. If they find that number rare, well, what does that say about the 12,000 number, of gun homicides per year? That they're ASTONISHINGLY rare? 2007-2011 is a 5 year period. You left out the important that that this is in response to 30,000,000 (that is MILLION) violent crimes - so firearms were only used defensively in 0.8% of cases - making it extremely rare. And in 85 Million property crimes, firearms were only used defensively in 0.1% of them. So, the notion that guns are a common means of self-defense is bunk - they are used for self-protection in less than 1% of ALL crimes. Total numbers and and percentages are important when interpreting stats so that one doesn't misinterpret what is being said. The fact that millions of gun owners correctly don't use a gun to stop a property crime, the fact that millions of people don't HAVE a gun, or live somewhere they aren't legally allowed to carry, and the fact that we don't know how many defensive gun uses go unreported are also important factors to take into account when determining how insignificant defensive gun use is and whether or not a gun is the wrong way to to defend your life. My mistake on the time period, but it doesn't change the huge difference in defensive gun use over gun homicide by over 47,000 to 12,000.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 5, 2016 20:02:11 GMT
2007-2011 is a 5 year period. You left out the important that that this is in response to 30,000,000 (that is MILLION) violent crimes - so firearms were only used defensively in 0.8% of cases - making it extremely rare. And in 85 Million property crimes, firearms were only used defensively in 0.1% of them. So, the notion that guns are a common means of self-defense is bunk - they are used for self-protection in less than 1% of ALL crimes. Total numbers and and percentages are important when interpreting stats so that one doesn't misinterpret what is being said. The fact that millions of gun owners correctly don't use a gun to stop a property crime, the fact that millions of people don't HAVE a gun, or live somewhere they aren't legally allowed to carry, and the fact that we don't know how many defensive gun uses go unreported are also important factors to take into account when determining how insignificant defensive gun use is and whether or not a gun is the wrong way to to defend your life. My mistake on the time period, but it doesn't change the huge difference in defensive gun use over gun homicide by over 47,000 to 12,000. And 2,600,000 times in that same one-year period, no resistance is offered to violent crime; 1,300,000 times the person fought back without any weapon, and 1,550,000 times people yelled, argued and/or ran. Hardly anyone used a gun in self-defense in comparison - which is what statistics are for. The difference between 47,000 and 2,600,000; 1,300,000; and 1,550,000 is substantially larger than between 47,000 and 12,000.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 2, 2024 10:00:14 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2016 21:58:24 GMT
The fact that millions of gun owners correctly don't use a gun to stop a property crime, the fact that millions of people don't HAVE a gun, or live somewhere they aren't legally allowed to carry, and the fact that we don't know how many defensive gun uses go unreported are also important factors to take into account when determining how insignificant defensive gun use is and whether or not a gun is the wrong way to to defend your life. My mistake on the time period, but it doesn't change the huge difference in defensive gun use over gun homicide by over 47,000 to 12,000. And 2,600,000 times in that same one-year period, no resistance is offered to violent crime; 1,300,000 times the person fought back without any weapon, and 1,550,000 times people yelled, argued and/or ran. Hardly anyone used a gun in self-defense in comparison - which is what statistics are for. The difference between 47,000 and 2,600,000; 1,300,000; and 1,550,000 is substantially larger than between 47,000 and 12,000. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not defensive gun use is a useless way to defend your life.
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Jul 5, 2016 23:48:22 GMT
And 2,600,000 times in that same one-year period, no resistance is offered to violent crime; 1,300,000 times the person fought back without any weapon, and 1,550,000 times people yelled, argued and/or ran. Hardly anyone used a gun in self-defense in comparison - which is what statistics are for. The difference between 47,000 and 2,600,000; 1,300,000; and 1,550,000 is substantially larger than between 47,000 and 12,000. We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not defensive gun use is a useless way to defend your life. Or rather, that 5,821,260 more people use tactics other than firearms when faced with violent crime than do use firearms, and that firearms are not the end-all be-all self-defense tool that the NRA wants people to believe. To to quote the VPC:
|
|