Living in nation with low gun ownership rate increases risk of being murdered (proof included)

[lawodevolution]

I used two sources:
2007 small arms survey: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
Murder rate by nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate

I combined the data from each and came up with 31 nations in which I had both gun possession rate and murder rate data. The result is that the 15 nations with the lowest gun possession rate had an average murder rate of 10.3 and the 15 nations with the highest gun possession rate had an average murder rate of 2.2. I have the data listed near the bottom of the post.



Next I did a t value test.
A.
Mean1 = 2.2 murder/100,000 = M1
N = 15
(Value-mean)^2 / 14

USA, 5.4
(5.4-2.2)^2 / 14 = 0.7314
Yemen 3.98
(3.98-2.2)^2/14 = 0.2263
Switzerland 1.01
(1.01-2.2)^2/14 = 0.1029
Serbia 1.46
(1.46-2.2)^2/14 = 0.03911
France 1.60
(1.60-2.2)^2/14 = 0.02571
Finland 2.17
(2.17-2.2)^2/14 = 6.4285 * 10^-5
Greece 0.98
(.98-2.2)^2/14 = 0.106314
Canada 1.83
(1.83-2.2)^2/14 = 0.009778
Sweden 0.92
(.92-2.2)^2/14 = 0.1170
Austria 0.73
(.73-2.2)^2/14 = 0.1543
Germany .86
(.86-2.2)^2/14 = 0.128257
New Z 2.00
(2 -2.2)^2/14 = 0.002857
Saudi Arabia .92
(.92-2.2)^2/14 = .1170
Thailand 7.92
(7.92-2.2)^2/14 = 2.337
Australia 1.2
(1.2-2.2)^2/14 = 0.071428

X_1 = 2.2
S^2_1 = 4.169418
N1 = 15


B.
Mean2 = 10.3 murder/100,000 = M2
N=15

South Africa 37
(37-10.3)^2 / 14 = 50.92
Turkey 6.94
(6.94-10.3)^2/14 = 0.8064
Argentina 5.27
(5.27-10.3)^2 / 14 = 1.807
Italy 1.06
(1.06-10.3)^2/14 = 6.0984
Pakistan 6.86
(6.86-10.3)^2/14 = 0.8453
Spain 1.2
(1.2-10.3)^2/14 = 5.915
Russia 14.9
(14.9-10.3)^2/14 = 1.5114
Ukraine 7.04
(7.04-10.3)^2/14 = 0.7591
Brazil 25.2
(25.2-10.3)^2/14 = 15.858
Colombia 35
(35-10.3)^2/14 = 43.577
UK 1.49
(1.49-10.3)^2/14 = 5.554
Iran 2.93
(2.93-10.3)^2/14 = 3.87977
Philippines 3.82
(3.82 -10.3)^2/14 = 2.999
India 2.82
(2.82-10.3)^2/14 = 3.9964
China 2.36
(2.36-10.3)^2/14 = 4.503

S^2_2 = 149.03
X_2 = 10.3
N2 = 15

Results:

8.1 / sqrt ( 0.277 + 9.935)
8.1 / sqrt ( 10.21)
8.1/3.19567
T = 2.5346
For P=0.05
N total = 30

We compare to 2.04 that is on the P<0.05 (95% confidence interval) table, we are looking for our T value to be higher than this value (which it is).
This means we reject the null hypothesis and statistically these two means are significantly different.

Feel free to check my math.


The reason I used that statistical method above is because we use the same method to determine if a medication is good for a particular illness. I held this data to the same standard of statistical evidence that the health care system uses to rationalize using a medication.

Null hypothesis was that level of gun ownership does not effect rate of murder
Hypothesis A is that more guns = greater chance of having a lower rate of violence based on the data.

Hypothesis A IS supported by the data, and was being checked against the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is rejected

The conclusion is that higher rates of gun possession result in a lower risk for murder per 100,000 in a given nation.
This does not prove that increasing the amount of guns in a particular nation will decrease crime, it means that if you are going to move to another country, if the country you are moving to has a low rate of gun ownership, you have a higher chance of being the victim of murder than if you moved to a country with a high rate of gun ownership.


Data for gun ownership rates vs murder rates given by the links at the top.
Here are the 15 nations with high civilian gun ownership rates:
USA 90 guns per 100 people, 5.4 murders per 100,000 people
Yemen 61, 3.98
Switzerland 46, 1.01
Serbia 37.5, 1.46
France 32.0, 1.60
Finland 32.0, 2.17
Greece 31.8, 0.98
Canada 31.5, 1.83
Sweden 31.5, 0.92
Austria 31, 0.73
Germany 30, 0.86
New Zealand 26.8, 2.00
Saudi Arabia 26.3, 0.92
thailand 16.0, 7.92
Australia 15.5, 1.2

Mexico was the median, 15, 14

Now for the list of low possession rates
South Africa 13.1, 37
Turkey 13.0, 6.94
Argentina 12.6, 5.27
Italy 12.1, 1.06
Pakistan 12.0, 6.86
Spain 11.0, 1.2
Russia 9.0, 14.9
Ukraine 9.0, 7.04
Brazil 8.8, 25.2
Colombia 7.2, 35
UK 5.6, 1.49
Iran 5.3, 2.93
Philippines 4.7, 3.82
India 4.0, 2.82
China 3.5, 2.36

Nigeria 1.0, N/A (had to be excluded due to lack of murder rate data)

[ZombieHorde]

1. Fun, rec. edit to add, welcome to DU. nt

[hlthe2b]

2. Ecologic Fallacy: statistical correlation does not equal causality

Statistically, Utah residents (who do not gamble) have much lower rates of cancer than do residents of Nevada (who do). Obviously we don't assume that gambling causes cancer, unless you blindly follow a statistical correlation to its absurd conclusion, without factoring in the other factors that make Utah residents different from those of Nevada and which are biologically associated with increased cancer risk (drinking alcohol, smoking, etc.)

Statistical correlation does not equal causality. Its utility is to provide hypotheses for testing in epidemiological (and related) studies. Come back when you can provide findings from these comparing the countries you cite.

[ZombieHorde]

4. This is why tobacco companies won their lawsuits for so long.

Maybe smoking causes cancer, or maybe smokers have other habits which cause cancer, or maybe just coincidence?

Establishing cause can be very difficult in rhetoric.

[hlthe2b]

9. Actually no....

The earliest landmark epidemiological studies on tobacco was Richard Doll in the British Medical Journal in the 1950s. His study alone was incredibly compelling. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related.

However, the issue was so frought with implications that it tooks decades of repeated and consistent epidemiological study, showing not only the impacts on risk for lung cancer but cardiovascular disease (and other conditions), as well as the magnitude of risk, including that from passive smoke-- all supported by animal and other biologic studies to prove biologic plausibility-- before the causality could no longer be denied.


The scientific/medical community was never in disagreement, except from the fringes and the hired tobacco "experts" (reminiscent of the Global Warming debate)...

[ZombieHorde]

11. I did not claim causation was difficult using science, though it can be,

I claimed causation was difficult to prove using rhetoric. Science does not convince juries, rhetoric convinces juries.

[lawodevolution]

17. Ok, but anti gun people already linked guns to violence, can't go back on that now

No one is trying to ban gambling to stop cancer. Gun control supporters claim that guns effect violent crime rates and so the gun control crowd has already argued the causation for me, to go against the causation now would be hypocrisy.

[hlthe2b]

25. Not based on a single ecological study...

You are arguing apples and oranges.

[lawodevolution]

29. No, my argument involves violence and guns

Gun control supporters started this argument a long time ago and established the causation or correlation between guns and violence. Just like with medications that researchers thought were beneficial, when they find out it is the opposite and the med is harmful that does not remove their established link between the chemical and it's effect, it only shows that the truth was the opposite of what they thought

[Euromutt]

40. Where did lawodevolution claim causation?

Correlation may not be a sufficient condition for establishing causation, but it is a necessary condition. As pointed out by others in this thread, there are probably (almost certainly, I'd say) a number of factors that cause both a higher violent crime rate and a lower degree of private ownership, but lawodevolution's findings refute the oft-made claim that "more guns => more violent crime."

[SteveM]

81. So you agree that "more guns [does not] = more crimes?"

[petronius]

118. That's not the ecological fallacy: the EF is making inferences about an individual

based on population parameters...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

3. Low possession of, well, anything, is strongly correlated with not having money too.

And poverty is strongly correlated to crime.

So...

[ZombieHorde]

5. Very true. Education is another factor. nt

[lawodevolution]

8. So what you're writing is...

Guns are not at fault for violence, poverty is. I guess we should focus on reducing poverty in the world and get away from gun control

[ZombieHorde]

13. Focusing on poverty and education would prevent more violence than gun control. nt

[lawodevolution]

18. In fact

Gun control is harmful because it allows politicians to go on longer ignoring real problems

[safeinOhio]

42. The real problem is

criminal possession of guns, not law abiding citizens with guns. Has nothing to do with the number of guns, only who has possession of them. Switzerland has high gun ownership, but low gun crime. They also have strict gun control laws on registration, sales and storage.

[lawodevolution]

45. A better solution is to reduce the number of criminals

If the government had been focusing on education and reducing poverty rather than pushing gun control that does not work, we may have even lower violent crime today. The gov also makes criminals, who may have otherwise not been criminals, such as during prohibition of alcohol and now under prohibition of illegal substances.

[oneshooter]

47. And acording to you a high tax and registration will fix everything. n/t

[safeinOhio]

50. Sure beats your idea

of making it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns.

[Pavulon]

54. How did they suggest that. This topic is so dead. You would literally get more votes

suggesting blacks be re-segregated than pushing more stupid, pointless gun control on people who have figured out is is a flaming lie.

All that law to look like a problem is being fixed. Leave it alone, it is politically toxic.

[safeinOhio]

61. Your logic.

If a re-segregating proposals would get votes, it'd be ok?

[Pavulon]

94. Nope, my logic is that TWO cases make it a right. Now you can get a sign with a dead baby hit

the clinic.. You are now sharing space with those people and people who dont allow blacks or jews in their facilities. I have a right to responsibly own a firearm. Brown vs board and others uphold the rights of minorities not to be segregated.

You lost. Move on.

[oneshooter]

55. Please show where I have EVER said that.

If you can't then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

60. Just show me where you ever supported any

law that would make it harder for criminals to obtain guns.
Yell at me all you want. I don't get angry, shout and go off on a nut like you.

[oneshooter]

64. I hold to my previous post. Prove that I said that.

If you are going to LIE about a poster, make it a believable one.
Just because I don't agree with your elitist views of financial gun control, doesn't mean I am totally against all controls.

Now prove your statement, or apologize.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

68. You are the one that shouted and cursed.

Call me an elitist. Because I was never rude or swore to begin with, I'd be more than glad to apologize after you do.

You do now state that you mean you are not totally against all controls. All I ask is for you to state which ones you are for so we can start a discussion on a civil note.

I will warn you that if you come up with any type of control you support, you will be attacked by others here.

[oneshooter]

71. And you are the one that tells lies about another DU member

And can't back them up.
Adding a large "tax" on the purchase of a handgun merely stops the poorest among us from being able to defend themselves.
I do support the NCIS background checks, as long as the records are destroyed within 24 hours. I do support the law to be expanded to include non FFl to use.

I do NOT support registration, additional taxes, or waiting periods.

There, now put up, apologize, or shut up. Lets see the prove that you don't have.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[safeinOhio]

76. please go back to my

first post #42

'criminal possession of guns, not law abiding citizens with guns. Has nothing to do with the number of guns, only who has possession of them. Switzerland has high gun ownership, but low gun crime. They also have strict gun control laws on registration, sales and storage."

Note, no personal comments or rudeness, just my opinion. then you respond in post 47
"And acording to you a high tax and registration will fix everything. n/t" post 47

I have never said in any of my post that HIGH tax or registration will fix everything. I have always said, every time, that it could reduce gun violence.

So, you start out with a personal attack and a lie about what I have said.

I am terribly sorry you get so angry at any post that questions your dogma. Instead of just responding to the comment you go on a personal attack, accusing me of saying something I have never, ever said.

If anything I have just stated is untrue I will be more than glad to apologize to you. I will apologize for responding to your rudeness and cussing by trying to politely do to you the same thing you originally did to me.

Now, I suggest we both return to civility and refrain from any further personal attacks and stick to the issues with out making it personal. You are entitled
to your opinion and I can respect that, just as I am and would hope you could respect mine whether you agree or not.

[oneshooter]

77. OK

My post #47 "And according to you a high tax and registration will fix everything"

Which you never denied.

Your post #50 "Sure beats your idea
of making it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns."

So, in that post you said that I wanted to
"making it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns."

I asked you to back up those accusations with proof. You have not/can not do so. Therefore you lied about what I have said.

I am still awaiting an apology.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Edit to add Your idea of higher taxes on firearms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x338588#338740

[safeinOhio]

80. You first, as you accused me first

of saying high taxes and registration would fix EVERYTHING. You find where I said that, as you started the lying, I'd be glad to apologize. I will also accuse you of taking an honest opinion and turning it into a personal attack to begin with, along with your vulgar "STFU".

I would think it does your argument for more guns little good by showing uncalled for anger by someone that is "Armed and Living in Texas". Not I, but many fear armed, angry people with guns.

[lawodevolution]

114. harsh words, bump

[jazzhound]

67. You feel that dishonestly representing the views of others

will somehow enhance your ability to advance your position?

How very odd.

[safeinOhio]

69. No, I honestly don't think

most that post on this forum are for any laws that would inhibit criminals from getting guns. My views are always dishonestly represented here by others with personal attacks, telling me what I "really think" and labeling me as something I'm not or a member of some anti-gun group.

The main argument here is that any law that would slow criminals from buying guns would do the same to legal citizens. I don't agree with that. I've have lived in a state that required a background check when I purchased a handgun from a private seller. It never stopped me from buying a handgun in that state and I found it not to be an imposition on me in any way.

[jazzhound]

79. In post #50 you claimed that oneshooter wanted to make

it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns, and have yet to point out where he said that, or apologize for the smear.

Whine all you want --- you are no victim, you are an aggressor.......and have ZERO CREDIBILITY.

[safeinOhio]

88. Go back to post 42 and 47

and see where the false accusations and personal attacks and smears began. Then show me where he supported laws that would make it harder for criminals to acquire handguns before my post.

But, thanks for your angry personal attack and failure to come up with any laws to make it harder for criminals to acquire handguns. Where is your anger over his smearing and lying about me first? My first post had no negative comments about any poster here or personal attacks about whining or credibility.

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Stop moving the goalposts. You still haven't proved (or apologized for) post #50

To quote:


safeinOhio (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-18-10 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Sure beats your idea
of making it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns



For all your bafflegab and protestations of persecution, you have provided no evidence of this. None.


And btw, you've indulged not only in slander, but in false teaming.

Since when is it our duty to provide proposals for new laws? You are the one claiming they are necessary.

Given recent trends, the views of those advocating more gun control should be tolerated, at best. Certainly not implemented.

Frankly, gun laws could stand a little more laxness in certain 'gun-unfriendly' polities

[safeinOhio]

92. No evidence of claims made in

post # 47. Lets go back to the start of false ascertains, slander and false teaming. The protestations of persecution began way before me.

[jazzhound]

97. Bingo.

Since when is it our duty to provide proposals for new laws? You are the one claiming they are necessary.

A rather authoritarian/dizzy mindset, no? Demanding that we state proposal for new gun "control" laws as violent crime drops and the number of firearms rises?

[jazzhound]

95. Defense FAIL! You had the opportunity to object to

oneshooter's characterization of your position in his post #47 with your response (post #50) and did not. It's absurd of you to claim a foul at this point, when your response at the time suggested that he characterized your position accurately.

[jazzhound]

96. Dishonesty in the *extreme*.

Then show me where he supported laws that would make it harder for criminals to acquire handguns before my post.

The fact that oneshooter and I haven't served you up our opinions on laws that would make it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns doesn't translate into the notion that we want criminals to have easy access to firearms.

Exactly how dizzy, dishonest and preposterous can you get?!?! Keep diggin' ----- the ditch you're in gets deeper by the minute. Your credibility is in fact LESS THAN ZERO.

[safeinOhio]

89. See post 47

for dishonestly representing the views of others. You think that advanced his position? If so, it must have worked for me too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. That's undoubtedly correct.

On the other hand, the amount of violence prevented by gun control isn't NEGATIVE like the OP says.

I tend to agree with the conclusions posited by the book "Freakanomics" on this subject.

[shadowrider]

37. While that may be true in some cases

I don't know of a 16 year old who makes 3K per night, dealing drugs, who would give that up for an employment opportunity making $15 per hour.

[ZombieHorde]

38. OK, add ending the war on drugs to my little list. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. You tried to make the opposite point (LACK of guns causes violence), which is just as wrong. -nt

[lawodevolution]

23. Not according to the t test

My claim is simply that when you move to another country, your risk of being murdered is inversely correlated to the gun possession rate of that nation. Backed by t test at 95% confidence interval.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Trying to conflate correlation and causation AGAIN.

Have you read "Freakanomics"?

[X_Digger]

43. I see that s/he said 'correlated'..

You seem to be reading causation.

[lawodevolution]

44. Like I said before, association between guns and violence has been claimed by pro gun control people

I did not have to establish causation, it's been established by the Brady campaign and the rest of them. You all are like a pharmaceutical company that spends a lot of money on studies to link a beneficial effect to their product but later when it is found that the "beneficial effect" is really harmful to patient survival and it's time for the lawsuit all of a sudden they want to erase the established causation. It is dishonest for gun control folks to claim a causation between gun ownership rate and violence but when the correlation turns out to be the opposite of what they thought they suddenly want to deny the very same causation that they established before.

[krispos42]

100. We have to be careful of causation and correlation

[rrneck]

6. Rec for...

Welcome to DU and a post that's more than pointless propaganda or ideological masturbation.

Statistics make my eyes glaze over so I have almost no idea what you're talking about, but I might learn something. Nice work.

[lawodevolution]

26. I'll Explain the statistical relevance for you

This is the same level of statistical evidence we use in the healthcare system to provide a drug of choice for a treatment. Many drugs are given with a lower level of evidence. Showing The causation between gun is not necessary because gun control supporters have been arguing causation forever. They already established causation. Often causation is established for a medicine, and then they discover that it actually did not benefit the patient but in fact harms the patient, but that does not invalidate the causation.

[OregonBlue]

7. Please, go back to your little gun club and talk to them about it.

[CountAllVotes]

10. agree

Good advice! Too bad I can't pass this info. on to the 3 people I know that were murdered via gun shot. :argh:

[Pavulon]

16. Sounds like you have a "via" problem.

gunshot was put there how?

[CountAllVotes]

27. by some asshole with a gun

and a bullet - that did the job.

[lawodevolution]

30. So you blame the gun rather than...

Poverty or a failed education system. You rather we treat the symptom with gun control than to fix the underlying problems. When you come into the hospital someday with a cough would you like them to give you a cough drop and hide the symptom or fix the underlying problem?

[Pavulon]

31. or a drunk with a f150, or a dude with a knife. People make calls..

dont blame an object for peoples decisions. You going to sue the brewery if i kill your passenger driving DWI? It wasn't my call, I blame the booze.

Better ban that booze and all problems will go away.

Deal with root cause, gun control is done. You have a better chance getting blacks to the back of the bus than pushing more gun laws. Game is over.

[CountAllVotes]

48. all 3 people were murdered

Shot down in cold blood. All were different cases with different motives mind you. In any event 3, yes 3, people I know were murdered.

I know of others that have died in gun accidents as well. Would you like me to go on or is this enough yet? :argh:

[Pavulon]

52. My stack of dwi bodies is taller. Neither has shit to do with responsible

ownership of firearms or consumption of alcohol. Go on all you want but the law of the land is set.

The gun is just a means to an end. Did your deaths have anything to do with drugs or drug money?

edit:clarity

[CountAllVotes]

56. No

The first was a robbery, the second was a premeditated murder as was the third one. All three cases have one thing in common; the murderers are now serving life sentences in prison. :(

[Pavulon]

57. Quite rare. My wife works in an ER. most GSW

people are employees in the drug trade. The VAST majority. Rare domestic events.

[CountAllVotes]

58. none of these were "domestic events" either

all of them were planned murders for the most part. Very disturbing to me. These people were friends of mine and none of them deserved to be murdered in cold blood. None of them knew one another nor had a thing in common. The first one occurred in the mid-1980s. The 2nd occurred in the late 1990s; the third in the year 2001. :(

[shadowrider]

59. If all three were planned, or premeditated, your friends must have done

something, real or imagined, to piss some people off.

I daresay if they were planned or premeditated, the manner of their demise mattered little to the killer(s). The killers wanted them dead and a knife or some other instrument would have been used.

As an example, my ex-son-in-law was brutally murdered in Atlanta in a high profile case. The killers used a baseball bat. Should baseball be banned?

[CountAllVotes]

63. my friends that were murdered were victims

One knew the murderer, the other two did not. All of them were innocent VICTIMS of a killer with a gun!

And according to your way of thinking, they deserved being shot and killed? No reason justifies this. You people don't get it do you?

I fucking HATE GUNS OK so get over it would you?

The pitiful excuses people give defending guns and murderers are sickening. :puke:

[jazzhound]

65. While I'm sympathetic re. the loss of your friends, I am

not impressed with the fact that these events have apparently destroyed your ability to absorb honest data on the issue of guns/violence.

I fucking HATE GUNS OK so get over it would you?

I don't know that any RKBA advocates in this forum care one way or the other about your hatred of guns. Hatred damages the spirit of the hater.

The pitiful excuses people give defending guns and murderers are sickening.

Excuses like the fact that guns are used many times more frequently defensively than offensively? The pitiful, hypocritical emotion-driven arguments of many members of the pro-"control" members are sickening to RKBA advocates.

Have a lovely day!

:toast:

[CountAllVotes]

73. yes I hate guns

There were a few floating around after my father died (he was in the Marine Corps. during WWII and had carefully hidden them for many years; in fact I never knew he had them). My mother had these same guns in her house after he passed away and she fell ill suddenly and the guns were unaccounted for.

I had to find these guns and have them destroyed as there was uncertainty as to who they were registered to. My brother was shitting bricks as there was a strong possibility one of them was registered to him but he could not remember exactly. Anyone could have found these guns and used them! Anyone, understand?

I had them melted down by the sheriff after I found them. Good fucking riddance!

Too bad you have never been in the situations I have been in with guns.

In addition to the 3 people I know that were murdered I also know of another 3 that were killed in gun accidents. Oh boy was that ever horrid. That made me hate guns, yes.

Anyone in their right mind would hate them after what I have seen and that is people with guns that should not have them. Period.

Maybe now you can perhaps understand why I hate guns. They fucking suck is why.

[rrneck]

75. Your dislike for guns is perfectly understandable.

Your desire to project that dislike on others or demand they share it is unreasonable.

[jazzhound]

78. As I mentioned in the post you responded to (but didn't

actually read) while I sympathize with you w/regard to the loss of your friends, I don't give a damn about your misdirected hatred. I noticed that you didn't respond to the fact that firearms are used with far greater frequency to protect than to offend. Philip Cook & Jens Ludwig -- pro "control" proponents conducted a study wherein they discovered that annual defensive firearm uses occur roughly 1.5 million time a year........as compared to roughly 500,000 offensive uses. Again --- this is the conclusion of two men who favor gun "control"! Other credible estimates of defensive gun use run even higher, including the NSDS and the Police Foundation Survey. But don't let facts get in the way of your hatred! It is the habit of the person with an ego running riot, or damaged psyche who disregards the proven experience of the larger group and replaces it with his own personal experience.

Too bad you have never been in the situations I have been in with guns.

Your hyperbole is only exceeded by your presumptuousness, as you have no idea what my experience with guns has been. I haven't lost one friend to a firearm, but I have been hit by gunfire. I had it coming, since I was involved in criminal activity at the time. I've been on "the right road" for over three decades now, and don't confuse the acts of criminals with the acts of inanimate objects.

EDITED TO ADD: Too bad I have never been in the situations that you have been in with guns?!?! You're saying that it's too bad that I've never had friends killed by firearms? Sheesh...........all I can say is to echo what a fellow poster has said: SEEK HELP.

[Pavulon]

93. My wife sees people destroyed by guns and alcohol

treats them in the ER. She also drinks responsibly and was an IPSC B shooter (pretty damn good). She drives cars. They do rape kits too, but you get the picture.. You are having a problem separating human behavior with objects. I hear the stories, some kid with half his face blown off over drug bullshit is not my responsibility (other than paying for his care).

No one says you need to own or like guns. Thats your call. But your situation has nothing to do with my ability to own a firearm under common sense or the law.

That what it boils down to.

[lawodevolution]

104. in El Paso a gun shot wound or knife wound in the ER

pretty much means drugs were involved somehow.

[spin]

106. I can understand your feelings ...

often experience colors our views.

My personal experience with firearms has been positive. I have enjoyed shooting as a hobby for 40 years and have formed friendships with many other shooters.

My ex-wife and daughter spent many hours with me on the range shooting handguns. My daughter actually used her favorite target revolver, a .45 acp S&W Model 25-2 to stop an intruder breaking into our home. She drew down on him and he ran. No shots were fired.



I can understand your feelings, my question is can you understand mine?

edited because I hit the post button by mistake.

[rrneck]

109. Seeing that image

makes me miss my old Model 19. Sweetest single action ever.

[spin]

110. S&W makes some sweet revolvers...

My current favorite for informal target shooting is the S&W Model 686PP in .38/.357 mag.

[jazzhound]

111. Looking at your photo here spin brings back memories

of my Colt Python. Maybe some day I'll own one once again ----- right now, not worth the expenditure.

[spin]

112. I never owned a Colt Python, but I have shot several ...

they are beautiful well made firearms. Maybe someday.

[cleanhippie]

66. You are not listening.

Go back and reread the previous posts, because you are not listening to the point being made.

[lawodevolution]

70. Seek help

"I fucking HATE GUNS OK so get over it would you?" --CountAllVotes

If you were at a baseball game with a friend and he was hit by a baseball and died would you hate baseball bats the rest of your life? You need to come to terms with your loss and understand that things like this happen. It's not healthy to obsess about the person who killed your friend but it's very unhealthy to hate other people (gun owners) who happen to own the same tool the badguy used to attack your friend. You should seek psychological help. I would recommend that you expose yourself to the object that you have built up such a hate for and fear of. Go to the range and take classes in shooting. You are suffering and although it's difficult this would help you heal.

[SteveM]

85. Many problems here, sorry to say...

"I fucking HATE GUNS OK so get over it would you?"

What are we to "get over?" Your hatred for guns? Our support for the Second Amendment? Our "defense" of murderers? Concerning the latter, I don't know of anyone here who supports murder. This is a straw man.

"And according to your way of thinking, they deserved being shot and killed? No reason justifies this. You people don't get it do you?"

"We people" don't say those who are murdered "deserved being shot and killed."

I afraid your hatred for gun-owners has completely clouded your thinking. Frankly, there are few people who don't know of someone who was killed/murdered, by guns or otherwise. It is very unfortunate, and those committing the crime (hopefully) did the time. You are fighting a lost culture war based on deep prejudice and animosity. This is not the way to formulate sound social policy within the political sphere, the purpose of DU.

[shadowrider]

90. I never said they deserved to be murdered

But in the mind of the murderer, they DID for a reason real or imagined.

THAT is why I carry. Someone, somewhere, at some time, of THEIR choosing, may decide, for some reason, real or imagined, I need to die. I CHOOSE to protect myself as much as possible and defend my life by any means necessary.

What is so hard for "YOU PEOPLE" to understand?

[Euromutt]

62. The premeditation is an element that doesn't support the oft-made gun control advocate claim

With all due commiseration for the loss of your friends, one of the standard arguments wielded by proponents of tighter restrictions on private ownership of firearms is that "lax" gun laws facilitate homicides that occurred "in a fit of passion" and which would not have occurred had the perpetrator not had a firearm readily available.

You'll find that quite a few RKBA (the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms) supporters on this forum, myself included, while acknowledging that the United States has an aberrantly high homicide rate for a wealthy industrialized country, contend that the problem is not that Americans are (in term of statistical averages) just as homicidal as everybody else but commit more homicides because they can lay their hands on firearms more easily, but rather, that there is something in the American psyche that prompts people to regard homicide as a viable (and legitimate) approach to conflict resolution.

It's worth noting in this regard that much of the American homicide rate occurs in the context of the illegal drugs trade and, more notably, that the overall rise in the American homicide rate from the early 1970s to the early 1990s is fairly tightly correlated with the increased presence of the Jamaican posses. The Jamaicans were initially noted for their (comparatively) higher brutality, both towards competitors and towards law enforcement (understandable given that Jamaican police are in a very real sense just another criminal organization), but their methods appear to have rubbed off other drug gangs, particularly those composed of other blacks of non-Jamaican descent. Significantly, firearm assaults and homicides in the United Kingdom have followed a similar pattern, with Jamaican "Yardies" introducing a higher willingness to commit violence with firearms, and other blacks (that is, those involved in the illicit drug trade) following suit, to the extent that the London Metropolitan Police Service has a special task force named "Trident" that is specifically set up to address black-on-black firearm crimes.

That said, there is undeniably a tendency that exists in America outside the sphere of organized crime, to a far greater extent than in western European countries, to resolve interpersonal disputes or personal crises by means of homicide, including murder-suicides. Thing is, this tendency, at least in the domestic sphere, exists to an even greater extent in Japan, despite the extremely restrictive laws in private ownership of firearms there. Japanese people are at least as likely (who are we kidding? far more likely) to respond to a crisis by murdering their families and then themselves as Americans are. They just use methods other than guns to do it.

[SteveM]

84. Murder and accidents via guns have fallen over the years. Want to go on?

[shadowrider]

35. Offering my sincerest condolences on the loss of your 3 friends

Were they shot by LAWFUL gun owners, or a bad guy who illegally (felony convictions, etc.) had illegal weapons and used them illegally? Where were they, at what time and what were they doing?

Many facts not disclosed leading to your, I consider, irrational fear of guns.

Again, my sincerest condolences.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. I know three guys killed by the Mexican Drug Insurgency

I blame it on Marihuana and black jazz musicians .

[lawodevolution]

39. We lost a family member to a hit and run involving a pickup...

I don't support banning all pickups and I don't blame my neighbors pickup for it. That's part of being a mature mentally healthy adult. Displacing blame shows that a person is having trouble coping with their loss or bad experience. Gun control groups have given a rational to a mental disorder and it would be more healthy if people would seek psychological help rather than obsess with hate and fear of an object and attacking the responsible owners of that object.

[Katya Mullethov]

46. You cant do that

We all know crazy when we read it , no need to point it out , and it really pisses all the crazy motherfuckers off . We don't want them mad at us do we ?

[spin]

107. I hated pickup trucks until I owned one. (n/t)

[jazzhound]

49. Now hold on a minute there Katya!!!!

;) :-)

[Katya Mullethov]

53. look at me

What's wrong with your eyes ?

[CountAllVotes]

72. being the people are dead and the killers are in prison

I'd really rather not go into it ok?

[SteveM]

83. And you suggest what?

[Katya Mullethov]

115. What a coincidence

I know three people killed by Mexican DTOs .

[Hoopla Phil]

12. Please make a contribution to the thread and stop the smart ass comments.

Guess that's a two way street ain't it?

[ZombieHorde]

15. Why so nasty? nt

[lawodevolution]

21. I take your post as

You admitting that I have made a good argument against your faith and this is a defense mechanism.

[rrneck]

24. Who are you to tell people where to go and what to do?

His little gun club has about 80 million members.

[SteveM]

82. How do you know his "gun club" is little?

[Hoopla Phil]

14. Thanks for the post and welcome to DU n/t

[naaman fletcher]

20. great work. nice post. nt.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lawodevolution]

32. So why do you feel the need to attack gun owners?

Did I challenge your system of views, this is a common defense mechanism to attack those who are different than you.

[Pavulon]

33. well your first comment is about the cock..

so that may be a problem on rational discourse.

[rrneck]

34. So you know but you don't care.

That's pathetic.

[jazzhound]

51. Welcome to the party, lawodevolution.

However, shame on you for your belief that reason-based arguments should be applied to gun "control".

:sarcasm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Welcome to DU, and may I note: NO ONE (as yet) has refuted your statistical analysis.

What they have done, however, is:

Misrepresented what you've said

Misrepresented what others have said

Gotten angry at having their religious beliefs examined and found wanting in the fact department

[lawodevolution]

86. They don't care about truth or

Reducing crime, they only have blind faith

[Glassunion]

87. What???!!!

[lawodevolution]

98. Who are they?

[jazzhound]

99. Blind Faith. NT

[spin]

108. Those who oppose RKBA are better with emotion than statistics. (n/t)

[lawodevolution]

113. that's all they use. emotion.

[DWC]

101. Your objectivity is sincerely appreciated

This is an excellent,intelligent, and objective post
concerning a highly subjective subject.  I look forward to
more like it.

Semper Fi,

[lawodevolution]

102. Thanks

[old mark]

103. Wait - this implies that criminals won't obey gun control laws? How evil of them!!!

:rofl:


mark

[lawodevolution]

105. It's more complicated then that

In Juarez Mexico there is a gun ban. The criminals still get their hands on guns while the law abiding do not. The result is the criminals are empowered because they have all the guns.

[lawodevolution]

116. Given the list that we recently posted about gun ownership rates, this needs to be surfaced

[spin]

117. Thanks for digging it up. (n/t)

[petronius]

119. Small quibble - it looks like you've assumed normal distributions for both variables

Did you test for that? I'd probably run it again with a test that doesn't require that assumption (Wilcoxon, for example).

I'm also not super-fond of the sampling method: taking the top and bottom groups of a ratio-scale variable seems to remove some of the required randomness. If it was me, I'd also report a correlation statistic (e.g. Spearman) for the entire set.

Nice post: I will eagerly await an equally-rigorous statistical examination from the anti-rights contingent... :)

[lawodevolution]

120. This came from the sample from the 2007 small arms survey

I might do another one off a larger list later.
If you look at the list of nations with reported murder rate, the top of the list almost exclusively includes nations with very low gun possession rates; however, there are several countries whose reports are obvious lies such as Nigeria and must be thrown out.

Nations that report very low murder rates are suspicious of bad data, especially if there is a suspicion that the government cannot collect the data or if there is corruption. This makes the study using all nations more difficult.

Nations that report very high murder rates are more likely to be telling the truth, because reporting a high murder rate would go against the natural tendency for a government to make their country look good to tourists.