The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by chr0naut

hmmm, wiki plus this ?? ...

only 0.2% were in self defence (that's 2 out of every thousand).

it is no wonder we're having these troubles.

.2% is not any amount out of 1000, period. (try .002 = 2 out of 1000)

also, using the deadliest period involving gang activity is hardly representative of legal gun owners or the implications of such.
nice try but waaaaay off base.

interesting how you neglect to mention that we are currently at an ownership level that is less than it was in the 1960s, 1970s and early into the 1980s.

i see you just dismissed this altogether ...

The rise in crack coc aine use in cities across the United States is often cited as a factor for increased gun violence among youths during this time period

crackheads don't usually qualify to own a gun but they get them anyhow

ah yes, let's look right beyond the "criminal" aspect, right?

In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996

but, but, i thought the laws we already have were supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

sad to hear about your personal experience but in mine, the ability to safely discharge my gun saved the lives of 30 that day and i'd do it again in a heartbeat.
you guys really are desperate, aren't you?

did you really think such bogus statistics would stand ??

reply to post by Honor93

if you aren't here to argue for disarmament, then what ??

the guns aren't going anywhere - and everyone on both sides knows it

arguing for disarmament is like wishing for world peace

perhaps for the purpose of proving to everyone that you are one of those Shameless Opportunistic Gun Control folks or what exactly ??

you forgot hussy

and - close enough

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


I don't agree with your viewpoint.

But I sure do like reading you!

reply to post by chr0naut

These actual numbers are so startlingly, hugely, different, it totally strips away the arguments of the US gun lobbyists that guns are a practical self defence.

Uh-huh. What I asked you to do was supply the actual number of people killed by gun deaths, which is supplied by that Wikipedia link you provided but you declined to cite:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

This is the number I asked for; 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 out of the 250 million guns owned by People. 31,224 out of 250 million, and as you pointed out, 55.6% were suicides. In terms of guns used to kill other people that number drops to 13,772 firearm-related deaths where someone used a gun and killed another person. Out of the possible 250 million firearm-related deaths we have, including suicides, 31,224 deaths.

Those are the numbers I asked for.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


likewise Furry

god but you Texans are an annoying lot

but - always charming

(some of my best friends are Texans. No - seriously)

:-)

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Spiramirabilis

 

I don't agree with your viewpoint.

But I sure do like reading you!

I second that sentiment! I am thrilled and honored that Spiralmirabilis takes the time to read these threads and makes the effort to post. Agree or disagree, Spiramirabilis is a great communicator and thinker.

reply to post by chr0naut



Wait a minute....

....i am an analyst by training, and I smell some serious issues with the dataset that you are using to draw your conclusions.

Yes, gun deaths in America are high. But lets talk about a couple of pieces of truth that relate to that:

- you are noting total deaths, not "per capita". On a per capita basis, I would surmise that many nations like Somalia, or one of the places where wars are occuring, would have a higher per capita gun death ratio. The "per annum" measurement does not account for the size of the general population. I would agree that totalitarian China has low gun deaths, as would a nation like India that is just now starting to end its cycle of poverty. If you want to present relevant data, you should make sure to present it as a ratio or a percent of whole, and not just a raw number without pointing out the context of that raw number (i.e.: the US has a fairly large population when compared to any other western nation, or any nation for that matter). It just has an appearance of dishonesty.

- you point out yourself the research limitations of gun deaths. It is an obvious issue that the article uses some fancy words to discuss. But a GLARING issue, to me, is that when viewed on a national level, gun laws vary widely. There is nothing consistent about gun ownership. Nor is there consistent information regarding the nationality of the shooter. Down here you often see shootings happen when one of the Cartels is involved. These are Mexican nationals handling whatever business they need to handle. The business originates in Mexico, as does the shooter and often the weapon. This is Mexican crime happening on US soil, and should be considered. As well, what of Cook County, Illinois? The fact that they have a MUCH higher gun death rate, per capita, than my hometown. I would surmise that what you want is data parsed by city, or maybe even state (unless it is Texas, then divide us by the typical Texas regions, like Plains Trail Region for my part of Texas). Of course, this will screw up your R^2...but you could also simply eliminate the upper and lower 10%, and then aggregate the data for the median 80%.

Regardless, the point here is: figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


yeah, yeah...

(and thank you Jean Paul - right back at you)

so, Jean Paul - as long as we're both here... (you didn't really think I would quit - did you?)

why 'cause you won't own no guns?

hmmmmm...?

:-)

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by chr0naut

 

hmmm, wiki plus this ?? ...

only 0.2% were in self defence (that's 2 out of every thousand).

it is no wonder we're having these troubles.

.2% is not any amount out of 1000, period. (try .002 = 2 out of 1000)

I think you should review what you thought I said.

0.2% is a percentage (implying that it is already out of one hundred).

0.2% equals 0.002 numerically (which is 2 out of 1000, as you noted).

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


First let me just ask, what the hell is going on with ATS? Are you guys experiencing whiteouts? Everything has changed.

I don't own guns because I don't want to. I do believe the pen is mightier than the sword in terms of keeping government in check, but I believe that because I am fully aware there is this huge armed populous out there, many of whom like the way I think.

Please will go a long way, please and a gun will go a lot further. That doesn't mean I need a gun, and I sincerely hope I never do.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Wait a minute....

....i am an analyst by training, and I smell some serious issues with the dataset that you are using to draw your conclusions.

Yes, gun deaths in America are high. But lets talk about a couple of pieces of truth that relate to that:

- you are noting total deaths, not "per capita". On a per capita basis, I would surmise that many nations like Somalia, or one of the places where wars are occuring, would have a higher per capita gun death ratio. The "per annum" measurement does not account for the size of the general population. I would agree that totalitarian China has low gun deaths, as would a nation like India that is just now starting to end its cycle of poverty. If you want to present relevant data, you should make sure to present it as a ratio or a percent of whole, and not just a raw number without pointing out the context of that raw number (i.e.: the US has a fairly large population when compared to any other western nation, or any nation for that matter). It just has an appearance of dishonesty.

- you point out yourself the research limitations of gun deaths. It is an obvious issue that the article uses some fancy words to discuss. But a GLARING issue, to me, is that when viewed on a national level, gun laws vary widely. There is nothing consistent about gun ownership. Nor is there consistent information regarding the nationality of the shooter. Down here you often see shootings happen when one of the Cartels is involved. These are Mexican nationals handling whatever business they need to handle. The business originates in Mexico, as does the shooter and often the weapon. This is Mexican crime happening on US soil, and should be considered. As well, what of Cook County, Illinois? The fact that they have a MUCH higher gun death rate, per capita, than my hometown. I would surmise that what you want is data parsed by city, or maybe even state (unless it is Texas, then divide us by the typical Texas regions, like Plains Trail Region for my part of Texas). Of course, this will screw up your R^2...but you could also simply eliminate the upper and lower 10%, and then aggregate the data for the median 80%.

Regardless, the point here is: figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

CDC - Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries

Medicine.net - Gun Deaths - United States Tops The List

NRA Violence Policy Centre - Gun Violence in America

Foreign Policy Magazine - How can a gun-crazed society lead the world?

The simple fact remains that more guns equates to more misuse.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


don't go into the light JP - it's not time :-)

and no - all dark on my side

also, fair enough - I have a reason for asking

but it just rained, the temperature is way down and I'm feeling extra civil...

as opposed to extra inalienable

:-)

it will keep

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Honor93

 

if you aren't here to argue for disarmament, then what ??

the guns aren't going anywhere - and everyone on both sides knows it

arguing for disarmament is like wishing for world peace

perhaps for the purpose of proving to everyone that you are one of those Shameless Opportunistic Gun Control folks or what exactly ??

you forgot hussy

and - close enough

what does being a hussy or not have to do with this conversation?
are you getting paid for your hussle ??
i mean, at least let us know where you stand.

i haven't argued that guns are to be taken away, i'd welcome them trying.
(it'd be good for business )

did you miss the news that gun sales in CO have increased 41% in less than a week ?
i don't see them going anywhere xcept where they belong, in the hands of citizens.

now the Treaty and its contents is another topic and has its own thread(s).
be glad to discuss the desire for further restrictions, there.

this is about the shameless opportunism of the Gun Control crowd ... tis a shame to see a fellow ATSer shilling for them.

reply to post by Honor93


where do I stand...?

nice try

:-)

I can understand you not agreeing - but not understanding?

you're going to have to find someone else to play with tonight Honor - I'm outta here

What is the reason to remove the 2nd Amendment?

It's not to promote safety.
It's been shown in this thread, that gun crimes exist in localities where handgun were illegal.

Is it advocates for smaller government that wish for the removal?

Or is it the advocates for larger government?

OK, here is a Wiki list of per capita gun deaths:

en.wikipedia.org...

Problems with this data are that we are comparing apples to grapes to oranges to lemons. The time frames for all this data are from various 1 to 2 year snapshots over a ranging 20 year period. For example, most European data is from 1998, while US data is from 2004-2006. This presents far, far too many opportunities for cherry picking data, and for variances. Regardless, the US is not at the top as suggested by a prior poster.

Here is a website that will give you all manner of data. This one is a chart showing per capita gun violence-firearm related:

www.nationmaster.com...

Not sure about the data it comes from....but it shows the US to be fairly low per capita when compared to other data I have come across.

Regardless, perhaps we should also compare overall murder rates in each country. If the US is higher in overall murder rate, perhaps then we can look for causes. And, perhaps you will find a correlation there between a higher murder rate, and gun ownership.

www.nationmaster.com...

nope. Guess not. We are number 63 on that list of murders per 100,000 people worldwide.

So, what I am gathering here is that the US doesn't have a very high murder rate. But, of the relatively small number of murders per capita, a higher proportion of those murders are gun related. Which totally makes sense, since we do allow gun ownership. Regardless, it does not seem to be driving overall murder rates....so what the hell is the big deal here?

reply to post by chr0naut


So then explain how come the US has a lower murder rate per 100,000 people than 62 other nations, as evidenced in my prior post? I pulled that from a site that just displays data. No motives, no angles. Just data.

Do your links provide just data? Or is there a narrative presented with the data? Because I would bet that the narrative has a motive, a prejudice. I don't care about narrative. Show me data. Lets talk numbers. The numbers I am seeing show a low murder rate in the US. But, of those few murders, more of them are gun related. Because, you know, people here have guns and they are an option. You know....on that rare occasion where a US citizen feels like they have to murder someone.

Or we could move to Russia. I mean, they have very few gun deaths. Although, they have a 500% increase in overall murders per 100,000 people.

That is what I mean...your narratives prove it. Figures don't lie. But liars can figure. And misfigure. Then present those misfigures as a narrative in an opportunistic pro gun control hit piece.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by chr0naut

 

hmmm, wiki plus this ?? ...

only 0.2% were in self defence (that's 2 out of every thousand).

it is no wonder we're having these troubles.

.2% is not any amount out of 1000, period. (try .002 = 2 out of 1000)

I think you should review what you thought I said.

0.2% is a percentage (implying that it is already out of one hundred).

0.2% equals 0.002 numerically (which is 2 out of 1000, as you noted).

so ok sorry, i blew past the "every" word, i admit.
however, it's still misleading because it goes on to say that 20% of those incidents of self-defense were fired by police.

hence, there is no specific statistic related to citizen ownership/use, directly.

come on, it even says the study was performed with the explicit intent to disprove a previous study.
it's nothing but a battle/argument over a RIGHT ... and that doesn't belong in America.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis
what is there to understand other than the stance you put forth?
enjoy your evening, this playground is full of options

Really, how dare gun control advocates use incidents of shootings to raise the issue of Gun Control!

They need to wait -- out of courtesy, for a time where we are not mourning gun deaths.

Since the average is 25 gun shootings per day, however, they might have to pencil something in for 2025 on a Sunday -- hopefully we will have a "do nothing and sit at home" celebration.

THEN, they won't be crassly exploiting the misery of people who just lost loved ones from fire arms and we will be willing to listen.

The NRA on the other hand, isn't crassly exploiting fear to sell weapons, and well, their participation with "stand your ground" laws and ALEC is merely civic duty -- nothing with pushing laws to get guns in schools and churches.

/s