Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
|
I don't have a problem with CCW permits. If someone takes training and passes a background test no problem. If I lived or worked in a dangerous area I'd get one.
I do have a problem with people saying having more guns around in general leads to more safety.
The closest I've come to a violent situation on the last 20 years was at two Oakland Raiders games. At one a fight broke out next to me and my kid, and at the other a fight almost broke out next to me and my two kids. (note to self: stop going to raiders games). I'm 100% glad that there is a metal detector and there weren't private people carrying guns. If bullets went flying someone probably would have been shot. As it was I felt reasonably confident that with my self defense skills that if they fight worked it's way over to me I could defend myself and my family. If they had guns there would have been nothing I could do.
Basically anywhere that it makes economic sense to install metal detectors (court rooms, airports, etc.) and keeps guns out I'm glad I don't have to worry about them.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
|
Just take a deep breath to clear your head and relax. THen look up the before and after in Austraila and their efforts on gun control. And btw, they still have guns in the hands of pivate owners...
Okay, I'll take a deep breath, as you should, and let's look at the facts.
Sweeping gun control passed in 1996.... Is FactCheck objective enough for you?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Alrighty then....
Which line to you want to look at since 1996? The 1999 line, where the number went from 354 to 385? Why NOT that one?
Okay, how about 2002, where the number is STILL higher than in 1997? (And that line belies the article's false claim: "The number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007.")
Ohhh... you're one of those "trends" guys, and "clearly" the "trend" is heading downward! Ohhh, right!
The problem with "trends" is focusing on "just the right" time-slice in which you GET the "trend" you are looking for. And from 2002 to 2007 you DO see a "marked decline" (to quote the obviously biased author of this piece) in homicides! Wow... just LOOK at it! Down from well over 350 to 282, a drop of... uhh... 68, which is a drop of 19.4%. SCORE! Gun control works!
But wait.
What happened from 2004 through 2006? Homicides went UP during that period, and "significantly" relative to other parts of the chart. Oh, that's NOT a good time slice to consider what the "trend" really is. Right?
Well, WHY should we think that ANY "trend" we are seeing in such a limited time-slice as the ENTIRE chart is really showing anything of significance?
Ohhh... because, as the article says, "In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007."
That is CLEARLY a "trend." Right?
Well, okay, so what is the difference from 24% to 11% of the drop of 68 homicides a given year? (Pick a year, since the article isn't clear on what particular year would be THE relevant one.) Let's say from 2006 to 2007.
So, let's make things as bad for "my side" of the argument as possible. Let's say that guns caused 24% of the homicides in 2006 and only 11% in 2007. That means in 2006, there were about 300 killings, of which 72 were caused by a gun. Now, in 2007, there were 282 killings, of which 31 were caused by a gun. Wow! That's a reduction in gun-related homicides of better than 50%! Goodness gracious! Gun control DOES work!
Here's the funny part. This article itself quotes Snopes, as it should be quoting Snopes right back at itself (but doesn't): "The claims [statistical analysis claiming that gun control WASN'T working] about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a 'small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics' signifying little."
Laughably, ALL of what we see in this article SHOULD fall to the same claim Snopes made about other articles.
Sorry, I don't buy any of it. ALL of these time slices are very, very short in sociological terms, and you already see significant fluctuations in the figures, even in such short periods.
If we, for example, ran my same analysis from 2005 to 2006, instead of from 2006 to 2007, you would get very different results! Why not choose that time slice?
The problem with all time-slice analysis is that you can get whatever you want by zooming in and out. The jury is still out in Australia, if you are going to be truly CAREFUL in your analysis and not just jump on whatever article INTERPRETS the figures as you see fit.
Another HUGE factor not taken into consideration by this (or any other article I've seen about Australian gun control) is that Australia bears little sociological relation to the US. Surrounded by a HUGE water border, Australia has a virtually non-existent gang problem compared to the US. The society is MUCH more monolithic than the US society, and the socioeconomic ranges are much tighter. And I'm just scratching the surface of the many and very significant sociological differences.
(These differences also apply to the TINY socialist-democratic countries in Europe that are often cited as "models" of how the US should be and what laws we should pass! Most of our STATES are bigger and more sociologically diverse than most of the COUNTRIES of Europe!)
So, yeah, let's all take a deep breath and repeat after Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Repeat again.
Then tell me ALL about Australia.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
|
Thanks, Norton. But I'll take a chart produced by the US Census and FBI over a NOLA-produced chart based upon a study from: "'America Under the Gun,' a report by the left-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank," thank you very much!
Try this, as you steer away from "a left-leaning think tank," and look at what the FBI data say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
As predicted, we see that Washington DC leads by a mile (most gun-controlled region in the USA).
Yes, Louisiana is second. But then look at Maryland, a heavily gun-controlled state.
Notice most of all that after DC, the RATE of gun-related homicides all fall in a pretty tight range, falling slowly regardless of whether or not the particular state has strong or weak gun control.
In 2010, for example, Colorado had one of the lowest rates of gun-related homicide, and at that time it had about the laxest gun control in the country!
YOU simply can't get the figures to support the idea that lax gun control correlates with high gun-related homicide rates. But I CAN do exactly as I said and show that places like DC, Chicago, and California have the highest (or among the highest) gun-related homicide rates in the country, DESPITE their very stringent gun control.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
|
Course, we all know racism and the effects thereof doesn't exist.
Touche'
Without delving DEEPLY into socioeconomic issues, serious discussion of gun-related violence is a non-starter.
This rifle toting as protest has got to run up there with rolling coal though.
Agreed.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:03pm PT
|
As mentioned previously there are too many other factors between states (or countries) to take a snapshot and get any useful data.
One thing that could produce some insight is to compare the gun murder rate over the last say 20 years and compare what has happened in states that have enacted gun control, v.s states that have loosened gun regulations.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
|
If you don't mess with me in deadly fashion, then you already HAVE parity with ME whether or not you are armed! My being armed is IRRELEVANT to you, IF you are a decent human being!
So you're saying that the well being of my family is solely at the discretion of your clearly impaired ability to determine if we are "decent human beings?" Pardon me if I'm not put at ease.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
|
So you're saying that the well being of my family is solely at the discretion of your clearly impaired ability to determine if we are "decent human beings?" Pardon me if I'm not put at ease.
If that is how you interpret my statement, then I think that you are the one that's impaired, perhaps at this very moment. Drinking a bit now, are we?
LOL
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
|
"deaths" is a weasel-word, Norton.
You're including suicide and people who rightfully needed to be shot in a discussion about violence.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
|
madbolter posted As predicted, we see that Washington DC leads by a mile (most gun-controlled region in the USA).
And as anyone who understands statistics knows, correlation = causation!
madbolter responded If that is how you interpret my statement, then I think that you are the one that's impaired, perhaps at this very moment.
You said it pretty clearly. Don't think there's a whole lot of reading between the lines there.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:13pm PT
|
A large sign just appeared on private property along the road between my house and Ouray.
It says: Armed = Citizen
Unarmed = Subject
The abject ignorance of SO many Americans never fails to both amaze and sadden me.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:18pm PT
|
StahlBro, ROFL!!!
I mean, side-splitting ROFLLLLL!!!
That is a classic example of exactly what I've been talking about! Damned lies and MORE, indeed!
Here the issue is that the chart's rows are divided up into insignificantly tiny increments, which stretches the chart to make the differences seem HUGE, when the differences are really TINY. Point-five... are you KIDDING???
And note the note: "excluding Mexico." But WHY exclude Mexico? Mexico isn't among "developed nations?" WHY the note in the first place, if Mexico is not?
No, the reason is because Mexico's rate is 11.17, which would put IT wildly, completely OFF THE CHART!!!
Now, let's compare Mexico's rate with the US at a little over 3.
Uhhh... getting the picture yet?
So, yup, the USA has a higher murder-by-gun rate than other developed nations. Big deal. See my points above regarding socioeconomic comparisons, and quit wasting our time with ridiculous, STRETCHED charts!
Edit: And, frankly, if the USA was not joined at the hip with Mexico, we would probably have a lower murder-by-gun rate than we do, and I'm NOT referring to the tide of incoming Mexicans, btw!
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:20pm PT
|
It's interesting that even the NRA agrees that mentally ill people should be added to the background check system. But doesn't want to ensure that everyone gets a background check.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:28pm PT
|
M. Bolter writes:
" But WHY exclude Mexico? Mexico isn't among "developed nations?" "
How about Brazil?
Brazil has nuclear capabilities, an aircraft industry, aircraft carriers in their Navy. They even have a space program. It's not a manned space program, but neither is ours anymore.
Brazil's hosting Formula 1, the World Cup soccer tournament, and the Olympic Games.
What more does it take to be "developed", besides getting their gun-death rate down lower than the U.S.?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
|
again, I have now presented studies (plural) and links that clearly refute the notion that laws "don't work" to mitigate firearm deaths
thedailybeast? Are you kidding?
And now you've switched the TYPE of statistic you are playing around with.
Oh, and by the clever use of "states," DC has conveniently been left off this list. LOL
Try to get serious, will you?
DC's laws DON'T WORK! Period. By ANY chart you want to trot out.
The question, for people that actually care to analyze the issues carefully and find WORKABLE solutions, is WHY are DC's numbers off the charts DESPITE DC's stringent gun control.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
|
when the differences are really TINY. Point-five...
Point five per 100,000 people. That's 1,500 people for the US. That's not insignificant.
And that's for the difference between us and Chile.
Compared to Canada at 3.0 to .5 that's a 2.5 difference. Or 7,500 people.
I'd expect Canada to be lower but it shouldn't be that much. What causes the US to be so much higher compared to Canada or Italy?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:37pm PT
|
That's not insignificant.
You are not being charitable regarding my use of the term.
I am not saying that the loss of human life is not "significant."
And I am not saying that the US having more than three times the rate of, say, Turkey is not "significant."
MY point is that compared to, say, Mexico, which was conveniently left off the chart, the entire chart is highly compressed in what is really a VERY narrow range, with ALL developed nations having a VERY LOW rate compared to many, many other nations that could well be on the chart... Mexico being a CLASSIC example and one that was intentionally and NOTABLY left off the chart.
Thus, the differences (statistically speaking) between the charted nations is not "significant" compared to nations that by rights SHOULD be on the chart but are not.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:40pm PT
|
What causes the US to be so much higher compared to Canada or Italy?
Interesting question. I do think that being joined at the hip with Mexico is not insignificant. And I think that if some study correlated gangland activities with rates of gun-related murder in a country, we would get some very revealing data. The USA has become absolutely gang-infested!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:51pm PT
|
Damn, those Chileans must be angry that they live in such a skinny country.
Unfortunately, seeing that we lead the world's murder rate is a good reason to have a gun for defense.
Oops,..
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!