You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?
PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.
Dude! Go do that baby thing!
Make sure to name him/her after your favourite automatic
Topic: Guns - page 22. (Read 22194 times)
IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.
Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.
You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?
PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.
Can someone from Switzerland substantiate that most males of military service age are required to keep an automatic military "assault rifle" 
in their houses? Even the Americans don't allow former soldiers to do that!
Why don't we hear about more Swiss mass murders, if the availability of high-capacity guns, and "assault weapons" is really their cause?
in their houses? Even the Americans don't allow former soldiers to do that!Why don't we hear about more Swiss mass murders, if the availability of high-capacity guns, and "assault weapons" is really their cause?
I live in Switzerland.
Yes, men have government issued assault rifles. They are not fully automatic after your military service ends (they get sent back and de-automatized). They're locked up unless you're on active service. Also there used to be a small amount of ammo in peoples houses, but it was also locked and checked from time to time to ensure it's not been used. After 2007 the ammo was all recalled, so men have guns but nothing to shoot with. If you want to shoot, you can take the gun to a shooting range which will sell you ammo, but you aren't allowed to take it off site.
The original point of having an armed populace in Switzerland was defense of the realm. There is no expectation of an armed uprising against the government, which at any rate is very democratic, the Swiss are famous for their referendums and highly decentralized governmental structure.
So the reason you don't hear much about massacres there is the "gun culture" is really very different. There's no widespread belief that an armed populace makes people safer and it's much harder to get carry permits as a result.
More in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.
Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.
That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?
Funny! You don't even understand how to view data. You are the one guilty of not using the 50 samples. You're trying to use one sample from the 50 as being indicative of the 50. You need to use all 50 as one aggregate piece of data. I actually thought you were educated enough to understand that. Now I know better.
Why don't you go back to your so very productive discussion with cryptoanarchist, where you two devout AnCaps can solve all the real issues of the world. *laughs*
Anyone want to graph the data on that list for FA, so he can see what I'm talking about? Apparently he doesn't understand the phrase "the numbers are all over the place" I gotta do some errands, but if it's not been done by the time I get back, I'll throw a graph together real quick.
That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?
Funny! You don't even understand how to view data. You are the one guilty of not using the 50 samples. You're trying to use one sample from the 50 as being indicative of the 50. You need to use all 50 as one aggregate piece of data. I actually thought you were educated enough to understand that. Now I know better.
Why don't you go back to your so very productive discussion with cryptoanarchist, where you two devout AnCaps can solve all the real issues of the world. *laughs*
That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
50 not a big enough sample set? Should we include countries as well?
Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.
I.E. Guns ownership wouldn't make any difference on the crime rate.
IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.
Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.
I.E. Guns ownership wouldn't make any difference on the crime rate.
I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!
Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.
That's not how correlation and statistical theory works. Smaller sample sets will generally not reveal a trend. Any one piece of data will not reveal much.
Your post is an utter fail.
EDIT: And it appears desperate.
I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!
Taken together, those statistics lead to a simple conclusion: No Correlation. If there were, Arizona would have the most gun deaths, AND California would have the fewest, and there would be a clear trend from one to the other. There is not. The numbers are all over the place.
I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths. DUH!
His selectivity was a serious indication that he has no idea of how to evaluate data or visualize a graph of the two plots together. Pretty pathetic, huh?
He also "forgot" to look at almost all the states.
I left the clearest examples of that in your list below:
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
For example, Vermont has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 8.4
Permissive gun laws: 3rd out of 50
California has
Gun deaths per 100,000: 9
Permissive gun laws: 50th out of 50
So, even though CA has the strictest gun laws, it has more gun deaths than VT with one of the most "lenient" gun laws. That lack of correlation appears in 26 of the 50 US states.
Nice selective copy & paste, of course you "forgot" to list:
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50
#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50
Oh wow look at this crime rate, the MOST gun lenient state has over 1.5 times more gun deaths than the most strict state. DUH!
I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.
I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.
I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.
I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.
I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.
Libertarians have never let data, facts, knowledge and statistics get in the way of their ideology. Never.
Has anyone stopped to think how an unemployed med student managed to afford $20K-30K worth of gear?!?
Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.
IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP
Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.
IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP
One of two possibilities:
1) Nutjob buys lots of guns, shoots people. Result: TIGHTER GUN LAWS!!!111oneone!!!
2) Absolutely fake publicity stunt/false flag event. Result: TIGHTER GUN LAWS!!!111oneone!!!
Bonus: Probable crack-down on Cos-players, since he claimed to be the Joker, the enemy of Batman (even though he was kitted out more like Bane)
Has anyone stopped to think how an unemployed med student managed to afford $20K-30K worth of gear?!?
Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.
IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP
Has anyone watched the horrible acting by fake witness "Chris Ramos"? I've seen better acting at high school musicals.
IF you haven't figured it out yet - THE MEDIA MAKES STUFF UP
I haven't read the whole thread, but I find it interesting that some people think the situation in Colorado would have ended better if a dark theatre full of smoke and screaming people was also full of cross-fire.
I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.
I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.
I think you are right in saying that "if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting..." I think that would include the original shooter in this case. I'd think if everyone around you was armed, the last thing you'd want to do in that case was start shooting as then someone else would likely assume you were the gunman and aim for you instead of the guy who started it.
I don't think Americans will ever change. The statistics are clear, just look at the graph posted early on in the thread. Countries which have strong gun control laws have way, way lower homicide rates and a notable lack of random massacres.
If you read the Armed Citizen column i mentioned earlier, in most cases criminals flee as soon as they start getting return fire.
Like them, this guy was shooting as long as he was not in danger; as soon as the armed police showed up, he gave up!
The statistics are far from clear.
I think they have more to do with the socio-economic situation in a given country than gun laws. Check the gun laws of the countries that are above the US on the homicide rate list.Seems that i remember some notable random massacres in countries with really strong gun laws...
Can someone from Switzerland substantiate that most males of military service age are required to keep an automatic military "assault rifle"
in their houses? Even the Americans don't allow former soldiers to do that!Why don't we hear about more Swiss mass murders, if the availability of high-capacity guns, and "assault weapons" is really their cause?
How about if all registered weapons are required to contain a chip,
which holds a unique code linking it to it's owner,
it can be detected from a distance.
Scanners are available to anyone interested,
but owners database is available only to authorities.
Scanner users can filter out their own weapons and those they know,
Plus it detects weapons where they shouldn't be (ie: banks),
Detected weapons are indexed for later reference.
Authorities can detect when a weapon is nearby (ie: pulled over vehicle),
Find stolen or lost weapons and the owners of misused weapons,
If aware of nearby weapons can quickly detect if they are registered.
It wouldn't solve all problems but might be a start towards a safer world.
which holds a unique code linking it to it's owner,
it can be detected from a distance.
Scanners are available to anyone interested,
but owners database is available only to authorities.
Scanner users can filter out their own weapons and those they know,
Plus it detects weapons where they shouldn't be (ie: banks),
Detected weapons are indexed for later reference.
Authorities can detect when a weapon is nearby (ie: pulled over vehicle),
Find stolen or lost weapons and the owners of misused weapons,
If aware of nearby weapons can quickly detect if they are registered.
It wouldn't solve all problems but might be a start towards a safer world.
Are you joking, or really this naive?
Jump to: