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.

Gun control in the USA

1…1011131516…34

Comments

  • #362
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    It's not really. It's quite straightforward.Do I understand you correctly that you believe that somebody who has planned a massacre in a school or a cinema -- to take two massacres just from this year -- will drive up to the school or cinema concerned, remember that the law bans them from carrying assault weapons there, curse the foresightful lawmakers, then turn around and go back home again?

    Just t comment they are more likely to target such zones. But that is another day's work. Fortunately an off duty cop working a moonlight at a cinema just shot a rampage killer - http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/12/armed-off-duty-cop-prevents-san-antonio-movie-theater-shooting/

    If this had have been the same chain as the Aurora cinema then that cop would have not had a weapon with them as guns are banned in those cinemas.


  • #363
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No one, not one person, is saying it's the only factor.

    Are they not? I seem to recall a rather garish image of a revolver with some statistics on it.


  • #364
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    Are they not? I seem to recall a rather garish image of a revolver with some statistics on it.
    Did that image say that guns are the only factor? No, it did not.


  • #365
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    How many gun-related school massacres have happened in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned?

    A few examples to get you started.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erfurt_massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiguan_kindergarten_attack
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

    In fact 6 of the world's worst are in countries where guns are heavily restricted or banned. Only 6 of the top 15 are in the US. So as far as the top 15 is concerned it is pretty even.


  • #366
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Did that image say that guns are the only factor? No, it did not.

    I don't recall any other factors being depicted. Religion perhaps?


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No one, not one person, is saying it's the only factor.

    Funny then repeatedly the same solution is being offered to the problem.
    robindch wrote: »
    By my earlier question, I implied that that if a country bans or heavily restricts access to guns, that the number of gun-related massacres is likely to decrease.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Breivik (legally) got his hands on a semi-automatic gun, the type that most people here would want banned outright.
    rockonollie wrote: »
    I do think that these Assault style rifles should not be available to the general public, and this may be the only ban that would pass through congress (I can't see them every having the support to pass a complete ban)
    robindch wrote: »
    Nobody has claimed that reducing the availability of lethal weapons will "stop mass killings". We're talking about reducing the level and severity and the incontrovertible evidence from every other country that's banned them begs suggests that control will reduce both.
    incontrovertable? Really.
    Sin City wrote: »
    A total re education about guns is needed in the States.
    Total restriction of sale or preferbaly total ban on guns at all.
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Take away guns and they will only use a different weapon. The age old rally cry of the gun nut.


  • #368
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    Funny then repeatedly the same solution is being offered to the problem.








    incontrovertable? Really.

    Sigh, not one of those posts says guns are the only factor.


  • #369
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    MadsL wrote: »

    I went by household to eliminate to multiple gun ownership rates as previously it was an X factor.

    Except you didn't go by household, you went by household with guns as seamus described. Your own numbers show that you compared 42% of the american population to 3% of the UK population.

    You then compared the total figures for some sort of death(I'm no longer sure if you refer to only rampages or gun deaths in general) in the US to 42% of the US population, and the total figures of the UK to 3% of it's population.

    If the rate of death by whichever your using at the minute is independent of the rate of gun ownership, then the comparison you've done would expect there to be a (roughly) fourteen fold difference between the rate of US and UK deaths per household with guns, because if gun ownership doesn't matter then the probability of dying won't increase with the rate of gun ownership, and the difference between the rates obtained will be due to 3% being 1/14th of 42%, (and as a result the rate for the UK should be ~14 times higher than that of the US.)

    So now we know what the expected result of your analysis should be, we can compare it to the actual result.

    26k/16k ~ 1.6

    So when we do this analysis we only get about a 1.6 fold difference.

    That's a lot less than the expected result isn't it.

    Indeed it kind of highlights that the only reason to do the comparison in this way is because the expected result for the UK is so much higher than that of the US that if you don't compare the result with the expected result, you can almost pretend the US's rate of gun ownership and death rate are independent and hope no one calls you on it.
    And I see that again we do not have a 1:1 correlation between gun ownership and the death rate. Having eliminated multiple ownership by using household what is your theory for that X factor?

    Why do you think either of these things are relevant?

    I'm not really sure what you mean by 1:1 'correlation'. A 1:1 ratio of gun ownership vs death rate would only mean the slope of the linear regression line would be 1. The slope is not a measure of correlation. You'd need to get the coefficient of correlation for that and, well, there's no point in doing that if you only compare two data points.


  • #370
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Sigh, not one of those posts says guns are the only factor.

    Yet such 'simple' solutions are being reached for is what I'm saying.

    The UK attempted such a solution in 1997 and it resulted in a spike of 40% increase in gun crime and it did not prevent the Cumbria massacre.

    As to the darling of gun ban advocates, Australia, the result of their bans and buybacks is by no means clear or incontrovertible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws


  • #371
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    I went by household to eliminate to multiple gun ownership rates as previously it was an X factor. And I see that again we do not have a 1:1 correlation between gun ownership and the death rate. Having eliminated multiple ownership by using household what is your theory for that X factor?

    Please no Simon Cowell jokes...

    Household doesn't eliminate multiple ownership. Just do what I do and use the direct per 100 numbers for gun ownership, and per 100,000 for deaths. Much easier to compare, as no population differences or undefined "households" to worry about.
    Doing that we see a factor of 1:5 between guns and deaths. The US has 8 times more guns, but 40 (8*5) times more deaths. Might that have something to do the UKs more stringent gun controls, do you wonder?


    Please note that this exactly what I explained in my last post.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Sigh, not one of those posts says guns are the only factor.

    Most of them only talk about outright bans of automatic weapons too.


  • #373
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    MadsL wrote: »
    gun ban advocates

    You will find there are very few of those in the thread.

    As a matter of fact, I think I'm one of the only ones who advocated banning of any sort of guns, and I limited myself to .50 BMG military weapons, and I'm flexible on that...


  • #374
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Sycopat wrote: »
    Except you didn't go by household, you went by household with guns as seamus described.

    Would you not accept that as a mechanism to statistically describe the prevalence of guns in a society. Mark previously highlighted that multiple gun ownership was an unknown in the statistics. Assume multiple licences are rare in household and we get closer to the numbers of gun owners.

    If you take numbers in the UK they are based on the number of licence holders, the US figures on surveys.
    Your own numbers show that you compared 42% of the american population to 3% of the UK population.
    No. I compared the number of households with guns with each other.
    You then compared the total figures for some sort of death(I'm no longer sure if you refer to only rampages or gun deaths in general) in the US to 42% of the US population, and the total figures of the UK to 3% of it's population.
    Rampage deaths. If there is a causal relationship between households owning guns and rampage deaths would you not expect a country with 14 times the household owning guns to experience significantly higher death rates in rampages?

    As you say....
    If the rate of death by whichever your using at the minute is independent of the rate of gun ownership, then the comparison you've done would expect there to be a (roughly) fourteen fold difference between the rate of US and UK deaths per household with guns, because if gun ownership doesn't matter then the probability of dying won't increase with the rate of gun ownership, and the difference between the rates obtained will be due to 3% being 1/14th of 42%, (and as a result the rate for the UK should be ~14 times higher than that of the US.)

    So now we know what the expected result of your analysis should be, we can compare it to the actual result.

    26k/16k ~ 1.6

    So when we do this analysis we only get about a 1.6 fold difference.

    That's a lot less than the expected result isn't it.

    Indeed it kind of highlights that the only reason to do the comparison in this way is because the expected result for the UK is so much higher than that of the US that if you don't compare the result with the expected result, you can almost pretend the US's rate of gun ownership and death rate are independent and hope no one calls you on it.

    I invited being called on it, in fact I specifically said.
    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm obviously a thick when it comes to statistics so show me how this is wrong. I'm sure it is. Do we have to account for population when talking about household numbers?
    Why do you think either of these things are relevant?
    Well I'm sure I could compare suicide rates and rampages and find some sort of correlation. Hell, we may even find a link between dishwasher owners and spree killers. Why do you think statistics about the number of households are less valid than statistics about population?
    I'm not really sure what you mean by 1:1 'correlation'. A 1:1 ratio of gun ownership vs death rate would only mean the slope of the linear regression line would be 1. The slope is not a measure of correlation. You'd need to get the coefficient of correlation for that and, well, there's no point in doing that if you only compare two data points.

    That's the point I'm making. We have two points in time of comparison, the only way that we can firmly draw the kind of conclusions that have been made "more guns = more rampage deaths" is to examine the change over time, since this would ignore technology, social change and legal changes it would be just as muddy.

    Social science is fun huh?


  • #375
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Most of them only talk about outright bans of automatic weapons too.

    Oh ffs. Automatic weapons are pretty much banned in the US. You need to be a class III gun dealer to own one, I can't even fire one at my local range without a gunsmith/instructor at my shoulder.


  • #376
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    No. I compared the number of households with guns with each other.

    Which amounts to 42% of the US population and 3% of the UK, buts that irrelevant to the more pressing point of why the hell are still banging on about households when we actual numbers of gun ownership? If you wanted to see if more dogs meant more people bitten by dogs, would you use the number of households with dogs, or would you use the number of dogs?


  • #377
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    Oh ffs. Automatic weapons are pretty much banned in the US. You need to be a class III gun dealer to own one, I can't even fire one at my local range without a gunsmith/instructor at my shoulder.

    Sorry, meant semi automatic (like I had said in the post of mine you quoted in that list). Although "pretty much banned" is not the same as completely banned.


  • #378
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    robindch wrote: »
    Would you like to clarify what exactly you're talking about?

    From your original post.

    "Following yesterday's massacre of children in the USA and the predictable response from the pro-lethal-weapon lobby,"

    In addition to ALL of the calls to ban guns and the rest - none of which addresses the actual issues at hand.

    Rob, you started out with a prejudice and you (et al) have continued down this same line of thought without actually looking at the facts. You can argue number all you like, it makes no difference to the simple reality that you can not "UN-invent" guns. Legislation, bans and other Elastoplast responses to bigger issues solve nothing, serving to only undermine any efforts to resolve the genuine problems.

    I doubt very much that any thing I say will be taken seriously or treated with any form of respect (the comments regarding my post are all the indication I need to draw that conclusion) - but - if you have a moment to consider the following.

    WHY are the statistics so high for "gun deaths" in the US? Have you run the numbers against the reality of gangs, gang warfare and the war on drugs? There is a direct correlation between the two.

    WHY do you (general "you" not a specific "you") believe that legislation/bans/etc will do anything to control the number of people murdered or will do anything to prevent another Columbine style incident? Legislation is not a magic spell. You can't wish guns out of existence this way and all it achieves is the unfair denial of property to people who are law abiding and safe users of firearms. Outlaws do not give a fig about the rules.

    Look, I could go on and on and on about this but whats the point. From reading this thread its clear that people have already made up their minds.

    edit: In case people need MORE clarification - "magical thinking" refers to the penchant shown in this thread for strategies like "legislation" and "assault weapons bans" - non-concrete measures that folks want to believe will protect them, regardless of evidence or experience.


  • #379
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Sorry, meant semi automatic (like I had said in the post of mine you quoted in that list). Although "pretty much banned" is not the same as completely banned.

    If they were completely banned then you would not be allowing historical preservation nor the keeping up the skills of gunsmiths.

    A Class III licence is a high-end gun dealer, private citizens are banned from owning automatic weapons. As to semi-autos, there can be little functional difference in rate of fire between lever action rifles - I have posted a clip elsewhere of a 13 year old with a lever action rifle keeping up with a full auto.


  • #380
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    heh, as an aside, how many of you screaming for the total ban on all guns have considered how close your thought processes are to those of a racist?

    No, this isnt a facetious argument before you all start getting offended by something that hasnt even been said yet.

    A gun is an inanimate object. Without someone to operate it, there is no means by which it can cause harm.

    There are a lot of assumptions made by the anti-gun crowd (not "gun-control", which is a separate issue) - namely that guns have no other purpose than to kill, that they are fueling the violence somehow etc etc. None of which make any objective sense. A gun cant make you commit a crime anymore than a kitchen knife can make your a gourmet chef. It is simply the perception of the firearm - as something dangerous and to be feared - which leads to the notions that banning them will fix the problem.

    It is the same old program. Blame the most visible thing for whats upsetting you, the further from your own responsibility the better. Blacks, immigrants, video games, rap/rock/metal music, dungeons & dragons - all have been convenient scape goats for the astoundingly obvious problems that we, as a species, refuse to deal with.


  • #381
    Hivemind187
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Seemed to me to a pointless dig (much like a previous comment re: leftys)- only difference is not sure at whom but given the remark about 'emotional responses' I would hazard a guess...

    pointless dig ... right.

    Im so sorry that referring to the chest pounding "I CARE MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE!" as an "emotional response". I'll be certain to make every general comment a specific one related to specific individuals next time.

    But not this one.


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    heh, as an aside, how many of you screaming for the total ban on all guns have considered how close your thought processes are to those of a racist?

    How many of us are screaming for a total ban on guns?


  • #383
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    How many of us are screaming for a total ban on guns?

    Under what circumstances would you allow gun ownership?


  • #384
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    Rob, you started out with a prejudice and you (et al) have continued down this same line of thought without actually looking at the facts.

    The fact is that the US has 8 times more guns than the UK, but 40 times more deaths from gun.
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    You can argue number all you like, it makes no difference to the simple reality that you can not "UN-invent" guns. Legislation, bans and other Elastoplast responses to bigger issues solve nothing, serving to only undermine any efforts to resolve the genuine problems.

    How are efforts to resolve the genuine problems undermined by an effort to solve a genuine problem.
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    WHY are the statistics so high for "gun deaths" in the US? Have you run the numbers against the reality of gangs, gang warfare and the war on drugs? There is a direct correlation between the two.

    UK/Europe has no gangs or drugs?
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    WHY do you (general "you" not a specific "you") believe that legislation/bans/etc will do anything to control the number of people murdered or will do anything to prevent another Columbine style incident? Legislation is not a magic spell. You can't wish guns out of existence this way and all it achieves is the unfair denial of property to people who are law abiding and safe users of firearms. Outlaws do not give a fig about the rules.

    Columbine style incidents are not undertaken by "outlaws" . Outlaws have illegal guns now anyway. The type of people who go on rampage are law abiding people who have multiple high powered guns legally, and decide, from sort of mental break to go shoot up a school or their workplace. Gun control will make it harder for them to get these guns in the first place.


  • #385
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    Yet such 'simple' solutions are being reached for is what I'm saying.

    The UK attempted such a solution in 1997 and it resulted in a spike of 40% increase in gun crime and it did not prevent the Cumbria massacre.

    As to the darling of gun ban advocates, Australia, the result of their bans and buybacks is by no means clear or incontrovertible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws

    Ah, I see, still trying to counter arguments no one has made.

    1. No one is saying guns are the only factor
    2. No one, as far as I can see, is calling for a total ban on guns
    3. As no one is calling for a total ban, no one is saying it's a 'simple' solution
    4. No one is saying that incidents like the Cumbria massacre will cease altogether if further restrictions on gun ownership are put in place


  • #386
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Most of them only talk about outright bans of automatic weapons too.

    To be honest, that's less laudable than it sounds, since most of those posters have demonstrated an incomplete grasp of what an automatic firearm is.

    And they're ignoring that automatic weapons have been very strictly controlled in the US since the early 1930s.


  • #387
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The type of people who go on rampage are law abiding people who have multiple high powered guns legally
    Except in Dunblane.
    And in Columbine.
    And in Germany.
    And in Sandy Hook.
    And that's just from memory.

    I don't think your assertion is correct.


  • #388
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    MadsL wrote: »
    If they were completely banned then you would not be allowing historical preservation nor the keeping up the skills of gunsmiths.

    Historical preservation only needs decommission guns, not working guns. Gunsmiths would not need the skills require to make semi-automatic guns, if they weren't allowed to sell them.
    MadsL wrote: »
    A Class III licence is a high-end gun dealer, private citizens are banned from owning automatic weapons.

    The requirements for a class 3 licence seem pretty easy to fulfil:
    Being at least 21 years of age.
    Not being prohibited from transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition.
    Not having willfully violated the Gun Control Act of 1968 or any of its regulations.
    Not having failed to disclose or make false statements about your application.
    Having premises to conduct business or to collect from. The building must be zoned correctly and comply with state and local laws.
    You fill in some forms, pay some fees and its done.

    But I think that license is only to sell automatic weapons, not to buy them. Some states don't have restrictions for private citizens owning automatic weapons.
    MadsL wrote: »
    As to semi-autos, there can be little functional difference in rate of fire between lever action rifles - I have posted a clip elsewhere of a 13 year old with a lever action rifle keeping up with a full auto.

    Unless you post the clip here, I can't verify that, but regardless of that I would imagine that 13 year old is in the vast minority of gun users.


  • #389
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sparks wrote: »
    Except in Dunblane.
    And in Columbine.
    And in Germany.
    And in Sandy Hook.
    And that's just from memory.

    I don't think your assertion is correct.
    Dunblane guns were legally held
    Columbine guns were legally held
    Sandy Hook guns were legally held


  • #390
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Sparks wrote: »
    Except in Dunblane.
    And in Columbine.
    And in Germany.
    And in Sandy Hook.
    And that's just from memory.

    I don't think your assertion is correct.

    None of those rampagers were gang members or had illegally obtained weapons.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    MadsL wrote: »
    Would you not accept that as a mechanism to statistically describe the prevalence of guns in a society. Mark previously highlighted that multiple gun ownership was an unknown in the statistics. Assume multiple licences are rare in household and we get closer to the numbers of gun owners.

    I don't think it's a particularly good measure, no. But as maths isn't my particular strong point either I did take it and run with it.

    No. I compared the number of households with guns with each other.
    MadsL wrote: »

    42% of households (48 million) in US own a gun and the number of licensed gun owners in the United Kingdom is reported to be 861,958 or 3.3% of households.

    I took those figures from you... okay it's 'households' and not total population, and I knocked off .3% of the UK to make the math quicker, but I've been clear that this is rough work.

    Doesn't change that if the rate was independent of gun ownership the rate of deaths in the UK needs to be roughly 14 times higher to account for the smaller proportion relative to the other, because you're comparing a subset of total households(hence my bolding). And an unevenly sized subset.


    Rampage deaths. If there is a causal relationship between households owning guns and rampage deaths would you not expect a country with 14 times the household owning guns to experience significantly higher death rates in rampages?

    We don't have the data to talk about statistical significance. Or causality for that matter.

    But lets start with the null hypothesis: That there is no link between gun ownership and rampage deaths. so the rate ought to be the same regardless of gun ownership.

    This' why it's better to just use total households or total population. Or no. per hundred. Some measure that accounts for the difference in 42% vs 3% or bypasses it.

    Comparing 42% to 3% means the 3% one should be 14 times higher than the 42% one because your dividing into 100% of deaths in both cases. And assuming the number of guns doesn't make a difference.

    100/42 = 2.3
    100/3=33.3

    33.3/2.3=14.4.
    Again knocking off the 0.4 for sake of ease, the UK rate can be expected to be 14 times the US rate.

    But I've shown that the UK's rate was only ~1.6 times the US rate when you substituted the percentages for the actual numbers.

    Do you think the missing 12 fold expected difference between the rates is unimportant?
    Well I'm sure I could compare suicide rates and rampages and find some sort of correlation. Hell, we may even find a link between dishwasher owners and spree killers. Why do you think statistics about the number of households are less valid than statistics about population?

    I don't inherently, total households can be a proxy for total population if you want. You're using a subset of households though. A larger subset in the case of the US. And not accounting for the difference this makes to your expected results.

    By not accounting for the difference you're effectively not comparing anything.

    That's the point I'm making. We have two points in time of comparison, the only way that we can firmly draw the kind of conclusions that have been made "more guns = more rampage deaths" is to examine the change over time, since this would ignore technology, social change and legal changes it would be just as muddy.

    Social science is fun huh?

    They don't necessarily have to be time points. We could use each states stats and each country in europe. Use them all as individual data points.

    Although I think it'd probably be the outliers on any such plot that would be most interesting.

    And I definitely don't have the time or interest to gather that data myself.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement