Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Gun control in the USA

1…89111314…34

Comments

  • #302
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    All muskets were unrifled - that was why rifles were called rifles - to distinguish them from muskets. I thought that was obvious since ye all seem to be experts on weaponry. :confused:
    My mistake. I won't assume people actually understand the terminology they are using in future.

    A thrown stone is also potentially lethal - but not as potentially lethal as a stone fired from a slingshot.


    Actually the fact that they did do away with slavery means they can also do away with the 2nd Amendment.

    You're using historical context to justify banning modern weapons. The fact is that using that notion of historical context would remove protections of homosexuals and racial minorities.

    If you want to argue against firearms, feel free, but you'd be better off not trying to lawyer it with the constitution in that manner.


  • #303
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nodin wrote: »
    You're using historical context to justify banning modern weapons. The fact is that using that notion of historical context would remove protections of homosexuals and racial minorities.


    If you want to argue against firearms, feel free, but you'd be better off not trying to lawyer it with the constitution in that manner.

    Nodin, Nodin, Nodin - that highlighted bit. Would you like to show me where I said that? A Winchester rifle is a 'modern' weapon, so is a Colt 45...
    Nor did I say 'Ban' - I said strictly regulate. I never expected to see you put try and put words in people's mouth and accuse them of holding a position they do not hold. :(

    I am genuinely disappointed to see a number of posters I respect routinely insist I made statements I never made.

    No I am saying that the 2nd Amendment was written within a specific historical context and clearly refers to a well regulated militia and to use that to provide justification for individuals to be allowed to carry high powered, military grade, weapons such as assault rifles is not what was intended.

    Saul Cornell, a leading constitutional historian is of the opinion that
    the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia. He shows how the modern "collective right" view of the Second Amendment, the one federal courts have accepted for over a hundred years, owes more to the Anti-Federalists than the Founders. Likewise, the modern "individual right" view emerged only in the nineteenth century. The modern debate, Cornell reveals, has its roots in the nineteenth century, during America's first and now largely forgotten gun violence crisis, when the earliest gun control laws were passed and the first cases on the right to bear arms came before the courts. Equally important, he describes how the gun control battle took on a new urgency during Reconstruction, when Republicans and Democrats clashed over the meaning of the right to bear arms and its connection to the Fourteenth Amendment. When the Democrats defeated the Republicans, it elevated the "collective rights" theory to preeminence and set the terms for constitutional debate over this issue for the next century.

    Looks like I am not the only one ....


  • #304
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    Worth every penny ;) :pac:


    Oh and aren't -2 marks.

    :rolleyes:


  • #305
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MadsL wrote: »
    There are regulations regarding the ownership of firearms in US, as much as you would wish to regard it as some kind of free for all, we have had law and order around here for a while. Back when this was a territory rather than a State it had to be sourced and paid for by communities and in some cases they had to help out using thier own armaments...wait what am I saying. We still elect and pay for our law enforcement locally, and citizens can still be called on to help out using their own armaments...I'm getting a little old to be called on but not by much.

    Yes - I am the only person in the whole wide world who has misunderstood the situation and believes it is a 'free for all'.

    The fact that I never said that is immaterial....

    All of those US citizens who spoke on Capital Hill yesterday calling for greater regulation also misunderstand just how regulated it is.

    Poll shows 54% in favour of greater regulation - do they also not understand there are regulations or do they think the existing ones do not go far enough?
    The most important number in this week's polls on gun control isn't the spike in overall support for more regulations — 54% in a Washington Post/ABC News poll this week, the highest in five years; that was to be expected. More important, as Greg Sargent pointed out in the Post, is the demographic breakdown of that support. Democrats, college-educated voters, women and minorities favor stricter gun regulations by significant majorities. Opposition to gun control is concentrated among white men, especially white men who didn't go to college.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gun-laws-20121219,0,3319334.column
    Can you tell me what its intent was? ;)
    Read back - you'll find it.

    Do you think they were so dumb they didn't consider the needs of future generations? I have already posted one Madison quote about it.
    "In the Constitution, the great ends of government were particularly enumerated; but all the means were not, nor could they all be, pointed out, without making the Constitution a complete code of laws: some discretionary power, and reasonable latitude, must be left to the judgment of the legislature."

    Our argument is not that my position argues with the "judgment of the legislature" but your position does. I have already shown you the mechanism to change that fact, but it remains a fact that the American people have continued to uphold and expand the right to bear arms. If you want to change that, go right ahead.

    Saul Cornell can do it better than me. His area of expertise is constitutional law and he has demonstrated that this continuity of which you speak is not historical fact.
    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTM0MTAzNA==


    What I find more amazing is such a document has needed less amendments than the Irish one formulated in 1937.
    You point?

    And you said I go down dead ends....

    Well you lock up your knives for the protection of others, yet refuse to engage on the whole issue of whether knives should be locked up by force of law ;)

    Yeah - I lock up my butter knives.
    I may lock up my spoons too - just to be sure.
    Or I might just continue as I am and make sure my chef's knives are kept under lock and key where my grandchildren can't get them.

    Apart from that - another dead horse you are insisting on flogging

    I'd say you seem fond of dead ends in threads. Jefferson's attitude to slavery is one such dead end. Will we get back to the issue of gun control? I'm sure lurkers would thank us for it.

    Or we could discuss your latest tangent and compare the Irish and US Constitutions..

    Gun control - the US needs to bring in stricter gun control.
    (Notice- at no point did that statement contain the phrase - 'Ban Guns').




    Most nations still fear for their survival, and they have a habit of putting people in uniforms and training them with weapons. Some, like Switzerland and Israel insist they keep those weapons when they become civilians again.

    Said he ignoring the fact that those Swiss citizens who have been trained and given weapons officially remain part of their Defense Forces so are not technically 'civilians' - they are, funnily enough, a 'well regulated militia'. Once they officially leave - they have to give the weapons back. Oh, and by the way - they may get to take their weapon home but they don't get ammunition so what they essentially have is a very expensive club.

    Israel - you really want to go there?


  • #306
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    I'd also point out that my state has both (state-sponsored) official and numerous local unofficial militias. I suspect they are both 'well-regulated'.
    Since the USA now has a standing army and the National Defense Act of 1933 which sharply divides the SDF's and the regular military, the USA no longer has the state-sponsored militias envisioned by the Second Amendment. Hence, the Second Amendment does not apply.

    And do the SDF's ensure that their members use their weapons only for the SDF, in line with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Or is weapon use completely unregulated?


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.
    Two interesting CDC pages which allow people to query the US national fatal and non-fatal injury database:

    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

    Pretty frightening stuff: In the ten years 2001-2010, 122,571 people in the USA were killed by a gun fired by somebody else - ie not including suicides, but including legal (police) and illegal (criminal) means.

    In Ireland between 2004 and 2010, there were 422 deaths and scaling that up over ten years and accounting for population difference (Ireland's population 4,487k, US 311,000k), that's equivalent to 49,000 deaths.

    Means that somebody in the USA is almost exactly 2.5 times as likely to die from a gun than somebody here in Ireland.


  • #308
    [-0-]
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭[-0-]


    There is way too much finger pointing, e-penis flexing, ill informed opinions and condescension in this thread for me to continue to read it further. Are any of you even qualified to be talking about this? If not, lose the attitude. It is unbecoming. A thread always loses appeal when people have to explain what they were saying ad infinitum. It's as if people are unable to grasp the power of conversation. Way to go people.


  • #309
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Nodin, Nodin, Nodin - ...........one ....

    ...then what are ye on about "balls" for, so to speak.....


  • #310
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    Since the USA now has a standing army and the National Defense Act of 1933 which sharply divides the SDF's and the regular military, the USA no longer has the state-sponsored militias envisioned by the Second Amendment. Hence, the Second Amendment does not apply.

    And do the SDF's ensure that their members use their weapons only for the SDF, in line with the spirit of the Second Amendment. Or is weapon use completely unregulated?

    Militias are governed under the Militia Act of 1903
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

    State-sponsored "unorganized" militias are still active in some states, such as Texas. The act also does not prohibit private local militias.

    I don't know how you make the leap to say that the second amendment no longer applies, and can I point you to the text of most states constitutions which embeds those rights even more explicitly. My own state includes uses such as recreation and defense as rights.

    robindch wrote: »
    Two interesting CDC pages which allow people to query the US national fatal and non-fatal injury database:

    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
    http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

    Pretty frightening stuff: In the ten years 2001-2010, 122,571 people in the USA were killed by a gun fired by somebody else - ie not including suicides, but including legal (police) and illegal (criminal) means.

    In Ireland between 2004 and 2010, there were 422 deaths and scaling that up over ten years and accounting for population difference (Ireland's population 4,487k, US 311,000k), that's equivalent to 49,000 deaths.

    Ireland has 5.6 private guns per 100 population, the US has somewhere between 200 and 270 million guns, say 88 per 100 population. That would equate to an expected 15 fold difference in the death rate (I assume that a direct causal link between guns and deaths is what you are trying to prove)
    Means that somebody in the USA is almost exactly 2.5 times as likely to die from a gun than somebody here in Ireland.
    But if gun ownership causes gun deaths, why is the death rate not massively higher, given Americans are fifteen times more likely to own a gun than the Irish? In fact, your statistics show that it is the Irish who are more willing to shoot someone with a firearm based on the numbers of guns owned.


  • #311
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...then what are ye on about "balls" for, so to speak.....

    I was asked to clarify what I meant by modified bullets. I have done so the the satisfaction of the person who asked and we have moved on.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes - I am the only person in the whole wide world who has misunderstood the situation and believes it is a 'free for all'.

    The fact that I never said that is immaterial....

    All of those US citizens who spoke on Capital Hill yesterday calling for greater regulation also misunderstand just how regulated it is.

    Poll shows 54% in favour of greater regulation - do they also not understand there are regulations or do they think the existing ones do not go far enough?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcmanus-column-gun-laws-20121219,0,3319334.column


    Read back - you'll find it.

    And have I not continually enouraged the fact that the mechanism for change is maintained within the constitution as democratically (and revolutionary, ironically) and urged you to take advantage of it through lobby (or revolution :D)

    Saul Cornell can do it better than me. His area of expertise is constitutional law and he has demonstrated that this continuity of which you speak is not historical fact.
    http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/ConstitutionalLaw/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTM0MTAzNA==

    Yet...
    District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment confers an individual, rather than collective, right to own a gun.

    and

    McDonald vs Chicago
    The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

    He is academically able, but not great on figuring out how the Supreme Court sees it.
    You point?
    Addressing you pointing out the 'flaws' in the Constitution.
    my chef's knives are kept under lock and key where my grandchildren can't get them.

    Apart from that - another dead horse you are insisting on flogging

    I'm merely pointing out (and you refuse to debate it) that you feel your chef's knives have great potential to cause harm. Yet you refuse to debate the question of if they should be restricted by law in any way. The UK has in fact restricted the sale and carrying of knives, do you agree with that decision? In the UK you could not travel with your knives to butcher a deer unless you could show that this was the 'tools of your trade' and were currently a butcher or chef. The relevance is plain, I'm asking if you support greater controls on all potential weapons or just (american) guns.
    Gun control - the US needs to bring in stricter gun control. (Notice- at no point did that statement contain the phrase - 'Ban Guns').

    And you posted a list of your proposed legal changes and I responded with the flaws of your proposals or where this was covered under existing laws. You then stopped debating those points. So yes, lets get back to gun control. Here's your list and my response. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82248868&postcount=83

    Now let's leave aside fecking landmines and other nonsense and get back to the debate shall we?
    Said he ignoring the fact that those Swiss citizens who have been trained and given weapons officially remain part of their Defense Forces so are not technically 'civilians' - they are, funnily enough, a 'well regulated militia'. Once they officially leave - they have to give the weapons back.
    But it is also possible for them to obtain permits to keep weapons, is it not?
    Oh, and by the way - they may get to take their weapon home but they don't get ammunition so what they essentially have is a very expensive club.
    They have range ammo available. Are you arguing for ammunition controls? I see the Swiss situation as pretty ludicrous to be honest.
    Israel - you really want to go there?
    Nope. Never will. Wife has been, she's never going back. ;)


  • #313
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    [-0-] wrote: »
    There is way too much finger pointing, e-penis flexing, ill informed opinions and condescension in this thread for me to continue to read it further. Are any of you even qualified to be talking about this? If not, lose the attitude. It is unbecoming. A thread always loses appeal when people have to explain what they were saying ad infinitum. It's as if people are unable to grasp the power of conversation. Way to go people.

    this thread/topic has been over complicated so much its pretty much illegible.

    i'll leave this simplistic take on the issue here...


  • #314
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Oh fuck! Now I have to argue with St. Bill Hicks.

    ...I have lost control of my life. ;)


  • #315
    KwackerJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,123 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    Its the person who fire's the weapon BUT

    No man or woman bar police or military needs to have access to high powered assault pistols or rifles...why would you?

    It's just lunacy that you can buy a high powered assault rifle and rounds of ammo that will potentially out gun the local police and not set of warning bells to the relevant authority :confused:

    It will come to a stage where teachers and the like will need to be armed to protect the children / staff and themselves


  • #316
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    KwackerJack wrote: »
    Its the person who fire's the weapon BUT

    No man or woman bar police or military needs to have access to high powered assault pistols or rifles...why would you?

    It's just lunacy that you can buy a high powered assault rifle and rounds of ammo that will potentially out gun the local police and not set of warning bells to the relevant authority :confused:

    It will come to a stage where teachers and the like will need to be armed to protect the children / staff and themselves


    What's an "assault pistol"?


  • #317
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So we are now talking about the EU? With a population of 500 million rather than your 850 million figure you used earlier???

    Apologies, I meant Europe, not the EU. All the numbers in my post come from the wiki pages and tables about Europe (population of 740 million). I used your population factor of 2.37 in all my maths.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Let's just stop for a second. You describing the US as having just 37 more incidents than Europe with it's (largely) stringent gun controls. That's all? yet people insist on painting the US as being somehow out of control, yet it is within 15% of Europe's baseline figure. And we are notably ignoring terrorist attacks in those numbers on incidents.

    Why are you stopping before the population correction? Its incredibly dishonest to compare the rates without correcting for the large population difference.
    MadsL wrote: »
    If we are correcting for population using the EU population and not Europe's population we get a factor of 1.6 not 2.37 (502m/311m)

    As I said above, I meant Europe, so my maths stand.
    MadsL wrote: »
    No, it means the US has 1.8 times as many incidents per head, not nearly as high as you claim.

    I think you better clarity as to what you are counting as "Europe" and where you get 810 million population from.

    As I said, I didn't use 810 million, I used the figure you gave (740 million). Want to try again?


  • #318
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    [-0-] wrote: »
    There is way too much finger pointing, e-penis flexing, ill informed opinions and condescension in this thread for me to continue to read it further. Are any of you even qualified to be talking about this? If not, lose the attitude. It is unbecoming. A thread always loses appeal when people have to explain what they were saying ad infinitum. It's as if people are unable to grasp the power of conversation. Way to go people.

    Who are you referring to? What qualifications do you think people should have to discuss this topic?


  • #319
    KwackerJack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,123 ✭✭✭KwackerJack


    MadsL wrote: »
    What's an "assault pistol"?

    A small concealed weapon capable of high rates of fire!


  • #320
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    KwackerJack wrote: »
    A small concealed weapon capable of high rates of fire!

    Could you post an example, 'small' is debatable and 'high' rates of fire compared to what?


  • #321
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Apologies, I meant Europe, not the EU. All the numbers in my post come from the wiki pages and tables about Europe (population of 740 million). I used your population factor of 2.37 in all my maths.
    Fair enough, just looking for clarity.
    Why are you stopping before the population correction? Its incredibly dishonest to compare the rates without correcting for the large population difference.

    Not really, the point you are trying to prove is that there is a causal link between the incidence of rampage killing and the availability of guns. So there are two corrections, not just one for population, but also one for the prevalence of gun ownership. You demonstrated that:
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.

    But gun ownership is vastly more prevalent in the US (88 per 100 vs a median value of 13.5 taken from that wikipedia list and 43 European countries and posted below) therefore should result in 6.5 times the number of incidents? Or is it that there isn't such a factor at play in the number of incidents nor deaths. Or that somehow the number of incidents reaches a cap?

    Isn't it dishonest to claim such a link and then not analyse the expected result with the actual result?

    List of countries for median ownership rate.

    Country Guns per 100
    residents (2007)
     Albania 8.6
     Algeria 7.6
     Austria 30.4
     Belarus 7.3
     Belgium 17.2
     Bosnia and Herzegovina 17.3
     Croatia 21.7
     Cyprus 36.4
     Czech Republic 16.3
     Denmark 12
     England and Wales 6.2
     Estonia 9.2
     Finland 32
     France 31.2
     Germany 30.3
     Greece 22.5
     Hungary 5.5
     Iceland 30.3
     Ireland 8.6
     Italy 11.9
     Latvia 19
     Luxembourg 15.3
     Macedonia 24.1
     Malta 11.9
     Montenegro 23.1
     Netherlands 3.9
     Northern Ireland 21.9
     Norway 31.3
     Poland 1.3
     Portugal 8.5
     Romania 0.7
     Russia 8.9
     Scotland 5.5
     Serbia 58.2
     Slovakia 8.3
     Slovenia 13.5
     Spain 10.4
     Sweden 31.6
     Switzerland 45.7
     Turkey 12.5
     Ukraine 6.6
    Median 13.5


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Not really,

    Eh, yes really. If you are going to compare two populations, you must at the very least correct for population differences.
    MadsL wrote: »
    the point you are trying to prove is that there is a causal link between the incidence of rampage killing and the availability of guns. So there are two corrections, not just one for population, but also one for the prevalence of gun ownership. You demonstrated that:

    But gun ownership is vastly more prevalent in the US (88 per 100 vs a median value of 13.5 taken from that wikipedia list and 43 European countries and posted below) therefore should result in 6.5 times the number of incidents? Or is it that there isn't such a factor at play in the number of incidents nor deaths. Or that somehow the number of incidents reaches a cap?

    Isn't it dishonest to claim such a link and then not analyse the expected result with the actual result?

    No, what I have shown is that the US has more rampage incidents than Europe. While, separately, I have also shown that the rampage incidents are deadlier in the US (more deaths there), this does not include the difference in deaths from intentional homicides (much higher in the US), because (as you stated) these are different in nature to rampages.

    So, to recap, the US has:
    more guns than Europe;
    more rampage incidents, and deaths caused by said incidents, than Europe;
    more intentional homicides than Europe.


  • #323
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Eh, yes really. If you are going to compare two populations, you must at the very least correct for population differences.


    No, what I have shown is that the US has more rampage incidents than Europe. While, separately, I have also shown that the rampage incidents are deadlier in the US (more deaths there), this does not include the difference in deaths from intentional homicides (much higher in the US), because (as you stated) these are different in nature to rampages.

    So, to recap, the US has:
    more guns than Europe;
    more rampage incidents, and deaths caused by said incidents, than Europe;
    more intentional homicides than Europe.

    Does it have the expected number of incidents after adjusting for the levels of gun ownership in the respective regions? We should be expecting at least a 10 fold difference if gun ownership is a factor in causing rampages, but no such massive difference in the numbers of rampages.

    What conclusions do you draw? I'm drawing the conclusion that high levels of gun ownership have a limiting effect on the number of rampages. What is your explanation.?


  • #324
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    You demonstrated that:
    Mark Hamill wrote:
    This means, overall, the US has 2.74 times as many incidents as Europe, with 2.97 times as many deaths.
    But gun ownership is vastly more prevalent in the US (88 per 100 vs a median value of 13.5 taken from that wikipedia list and 43 European countries and posted below) therefore should result in 6.5 times the number of incidents? Or is it that there isn't such a factor at play in the number of incidents nor deaths. Or that somehow the number of incidents reaches a cap?

    Incidentally, you really need to get some classes in statistics. What you have shown here is that the correlation between gun ownership and incidents isn't exactly equal (200% the guns wont result in 200% the incidents), but its still very much there (200% the guns = 142% the incidents).


  • #325
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Incidentally, you really need to get some classes in statistics. What you have shown here is that the correlation between gun ownership and incidents isn't exactly equal (200% the guns wont result in 200% the incidents), but its still very much there (200% the guns = 142% the incidents).

    Very well, you are the statistics expert (are you?) why is there not a 1:1 correlation do you think? And what level of incidents would expect at 1000% of the guns?

    And can you stop with the snideness, I'm tying to have a reasoned debate with you.


  • #326
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Does it have the expected number of incidents after adjusting for the levels of gun ownership in the respective regions? We should be expecting at least a 10 fold difference if gun ownership is a factor in causing rampages, but no such massive difference in the numbers of rampages.

    Who said that gun ownership is a factor in causing rampages? Its been argued that its a factor in the number of fatalities in rampages (and its separately been argued that the US has more rampages, but that was to correct your earlier facetious claim that Asia had more rampages than the US).
    MadsL wrote: »
    What conclusions do you draw? I'm drawing the conclusion that high levels of gun ownership have a limiting effect on the number of rampages. What is your explanation.?

    That you are way out of your depth with statistics.


  • #327
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Who said that gun ownership is a factor in causing rampages? Its been argued that its a factor in the number of fatalities in rampages (and its separately been argued that the US has more rampages, but that was to correct your earlier facetious claim that Asia had more rampages than the US).

    So limiting gun ownership will not prevent rampages. Thank you, we finally got there.

    That you are way out of your depth with statistics.

    I might be. Please enlighten me as to what your expected rates of rampages would be using your carefully prepared statistics to predict the relationship between rates of gun ownership and rampages.

    Or is there no correlation?


  • #328
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Very well, you are the statistics expert (are you?) why is there not a 1:1 correlation do you think?

    Off the top of my head, I'd say it could be because more people buy more than one gun in the US than in Europe.
    MadsL wrote: »
    And what level of incidents would expect at 1000% of the guns?

    Well assuming the relationship being gun ownership and number of incidents doesn't change regardless of the number of guns, 1000% is 5 times 200%, so I would expect 5 times 142% the number of incidents.


  • #329
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Off the top of my head, I'd say it could be because more people buy more than one gun in the US than in Europe.


    Well assuming the relationship being gun ownership and number of incidents doesn't change regardless of the number of guns, 1000% is 5 times 200%, so I would expect 5 times 142% the number of incidents.

    So are the actual figures in line with that or not?


  • #330
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So limiting gun ownership will not prevent rampages. Thank you, we finally got there.

    Got there? When where we not there? Has anyone on this thread, who advocates gun control, ever said that guns cause rampages?


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    So are the actual figures in line with that or not?

    Yes, assuming the figures you gave in this post are accurate.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement