You claim my reasoning is wrong because an administration headed by someone opposed to private gun ownership doesn't agree.
My reasoning is very simple and you even admitted that the numbers are correct. We have fewer cars than guns in the US and we have more deaths from cars than guns in the US. The numbers say so. There is no other reasoning involved in that statement. Let's try this with some simple equations and value substitutions.
Let x = 400, y = 500, c = 10 and d = 8. It is a fact that x d. Now, we have evidence from trusted sources that x represents the number of inanimate objects that were involved in c number of events. We also have evidence from trusted sources that y represents the number of another group of inanimate objects that were involved in d number of other events. Therefore, we can say that there is a higher likelihood that a thing from the x group will be involved in an event than there is that a y thing will. In fact, we can say 2.5% of the x things will be involved in an event while only 1.6% of the y things will be involved in an event. One can easily verify that the numbers I quoted are pulled from government agencies such as the CDC and the DOJ. The household estimates are, as i stated, from research groups. Personally, I trust Gallup more than Pew on those numbers as Pew is publicly committed to reducing the number of privately owned guns in the US but even using their numbers, my math is sound.
i was responding to a claim that you are statistically more likely to get shot by your own gun than someone else's and that owning a gun makes you more vulnerable to death by gun. I was pointing out that removing suicides from the equation greatly reduces the chances of being shot by your own gun which is a valid argument to make because that bogus statistic is often used to claim that somebody else will turn the gun on you. I was also pointing out that having a car is more likely to result in being killed by a car than owning a gun is going to result in being killed by a gun. My arguments are statistically valid and people should be given some context and perspective about how unlikely either scenario is.
As I said, people often like to use statistics to show how much more likely you are to be killed by a gun if you own one but aren't told that that only holds true if the guns used to commit suicide are included and people are never told that fewer cars cause more death than guns. Be against gun ownership if you want but don't claim that they cause more death (especially innocent death) than many other things in our lives.
As for an insurance actuary... What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you telling me that State Farm has more insights into the number of guns in the US than any other source such as Gallup and Pew research?
Wait, the Founding Fathers bear the burden of allowing slavery because they broke away from a country that allowed it but didn't stop it?
And because they bear the burden of having allowed slavery, they should be demonized and claims that the world would be better off if they hadn't broken away from the British so that slavery was eventually made illegal pretty much everywhere except in Africa and the Middle East?
The Founding Fathers weren't perfect. I don't know anyone who says they were. However, they were better than the British rulers of their day and they strove for a better society and what they did set the stage for that better society.
Those are valid numbers that you can find for yourself just by looking at federal agency websites.
The claim is that guns are causing more harm than automobiles yet we have more guns than automobiles and automobiles cause more deaths. That is pure fact from federal agencies put out by the current anti-gun administration. You can try to spin it into something different but the fact remains that an automobile in the US is more likely to kill someone than a gun.
can you liberal whackjobs and nutjobs that are so afraid that you piss your pants at the very mention of a gun ever discuss guns in a rational manner without making the claim that a.22 is a 9mm is a rocket launcher is an atomic bomb?
Yes, i see how a desire for a relatively week and small government is readily confused with a desire for a very powerful centralized government that controls most aspects of life.
AmiMoJo's claim was that the attempt happened but things turned out poorly. Certainly if the attempt happened and failed IT HAPPENED and evidence that it happened can be given.
Yes, and some also owned slaves because they inherited them along with the plantations and felt that keeping them to keep the plantation going and being productive was better than just turning the slaves loose. Then the plantation was sold, the slaves freed and given the proceeds upon the death of the particular Founding Father and his wife. It was a very complex time and people made the best choices they could make at the time.
and you completely miss the whole point of driving a performance car. Actually being able to drive it well is the point. Sitting in it while someone else drives it is the equivalent of standing close enough to Jordan Spieth as he tees off that you can hear the swish of his driver and the clink of it hitting the ball instead of actually learning to play golf and improving your own game.
Getting really sick of yet another post from an individual with fewer freedoms than I have complaining about my freedoms. If I wanted to read posts about people being envious of freedom, I'd read blogs written by death row inmates.
Says no valid study of the US ever unless they are including suicides. Your bogus little statistic is often thrown out trying to discourage people from owning guns and then an example of someone losing control of their gun and it being turned on them is tossed out. However, the since the statistic only holds true if suicides are included the valid example should be a suicide. The truth is that roughly 22,000 suicides are committed with guns in the US and it is very likely that 99% or more of them are with a gun from the household. Of the remaining 10,000 or so gun deaths, somewhere around 8,500 of them are murders of which 90% or so are gangbangers and drug dealers killing each other. So, yes, you are more likely to be shot if you own a gun than if you don't but only because 2/3 of those shot purposely shoot themselves and 1/4 of those shot are involved in illegal and violent enterprises. Now, lets look at the likelihood of being shot even if you do own a gun. Surveys show that somewhere between 37% to 47% (left leaning Pew research lower than neutral Gallup) of US households have a gun in them. There are more than 116 million households in the US (US Census Bureau). That gives us between 42 million and 54.5 million households with guns. If we count all gun deaths, a household with a gun has a 1 in 1,703 to a 1 in 1,312 chance of having someone killed with an average of 2.63 persons per household your chances of being killed by living in a household with a gun are between 1 in 3,451 and 1 in 4,479. If you don't plan to commit suicide and you and others in your household aren't involved in drug trafficking, then your chance of being killed while living in a household with a gun is 1 in 36,820 to 1 in 47,778.
On the other hand, over 90% of households own a car and there are roughly the same number of MVA deaths as gun deaths so your chances of dying from a car if you live in a household with a car is 1 in 8,580. So assuming the average American is going to commit suicide or lives with a drug trafficker/gangbanger, you are twice as likely to be killed by a gun while living in a household with a gun than you are to be killed by a car (assuming no suicides from running the car in a closed garage which is a false assumption) while living in a household with a car. However, if we remove self-inflicted and drug-trafficking from the equation so that we can discuss the average American, then you are 4.3 to 5.5 times as likely to die by car while living in a household with a car than you are to die by gun while living in a household with a gun.
Tell me again why living in a household with a gun is risky. All of these numbers are readily available to the public so don't take my word for it, look them up yourself.
"how much does that gun protect your house when you're not in it?" What an asinine question? The only possible reason to even ask that question is if you are the type that believes guns are the inherent evil and do the killing all by themselves.
Maybe, if you live in such a high crime area and want to own a gun and cannot keep the gun on you or closer to you when you leave the house, then you buy a safe and bolt it to the wall or the floor or not at all because most criminals are smart enough to realize that breaking into a high-quality gun safe is not worth the effort.
They are trying. To the point that people are threatened with expulsion from state run universities for committing such aggressive acts as asking "So, where you from?" (yes, they call it microaggression)
The way I read the policy is that people are not allowed to advertise the selling of guns except for licensed dealers who are then not allowed to accept payment via Facebook.
I guess you are correct in that so far Facebook seems to be willing to allow people to post something like "Yeah, Moe's Hardware has a pretty decent assortment of guns and their prices are fair."
And where do you stand in regards to Aaron and Melissa Klein? Should they be forced into bankruptcy for exercising their freedom to not produce pieces of art contrary to their beliefs or should the gay men have exercised their freedom and gone elsewhere?
I can agree that Facebook is within its rights but only if governments agree that the Kleins were within their rights. Once government starts picking and choosing to support a right for only a portion of the population, are we not simply back to the pre-Civil Rights age? Or are we to the point of "my right to discriminate supersedes your right to discriminate because I have chosen to discriminate against a different group than you!"
I agree with you up to the point that, we as a society, have decided that the government WILL NOT allow businesses to pick and choose with whom they do business.
A private restaurant serving a black person being an old example and a professional artist refusing to create a piece of art for a gay wedding being a recent example. Wholesalers picking and choosing which retailers to service for reasons other than ability to pay would be another example. Why then should the government not step in and charge Facebook with discriminatory business practices for refusing to allow federally licensed gun dealers from accessing Facebook's payment processing system when Facebook allows other businesses to access it.
Facebook is happy to have federally licensed gun dealers as part of their community but only as second class citizens. That is discrimination and either discrimination is wrong and must be punished by the state or it is not and the state cannot punish anyone for engaging in it.
Correlation is better than no correlation as is the general form of anti-gun arguments.
As in, "It is simply common-sense that whenever gun laws are more restrictive, then violent crime is reduced." We can examine Chicago to disprove that fallacy within the US and we can look at El Salvador to disprove that fallacy at a national level. Gun banners like to argue a causation when there is not even a correlation.
If they said people could yammer away on their iPhones but Androids had to be turned off, then yes, I would.
To make your analogy relevant and useful, you must compare apples to apples so let's try this one. Would you find it acceptable if Facebook issued a policy that they would no longer facilitate the advertising and selling of gay-themed wedding cakes or maybe of wedding cakes that were not obviously gay-themed?
Facebook could possibly claim that not allowing non-licensed dealers to advertise is likely to lead to illegal sales and not allow those but to not allow licensed dealers (FFL holders) access to sell their legal product while facilitating the sale of other legal products is discrimination against a particular business. One cannot be against discrimination while praising an act of discrimination.
So you are using the argument that criminals commit crimes to help them commit other crimes and the solution for this is to create more laws that might have no affect on society other than to cause people who were law-abiding before to no longer be law-abiding?
I have seen the argument that the guns causing the problem in Chicago are because surrounding states don't have strict enough gun laws and that this is somehow proof that all of Chicago's problems would be solved if only everywhere else had just as many restrictions. Let us examine the major flaw with that argument. All those surrounding areas don't themselves have all the violence issues that Chicago has so Chicago's problems are NOT caused by the guns, they are caused by the people in Chicago. It really is that simple. If the violence problems in Chicago were caused by Indiana's guns, Indiana would have all the same problems as Chicago. Because Indiana isn't having those problems but Chicago is, we have to ask ourselves "Why?" Is it because most people that live in Chicago are inherently more prone to do violence? Is it because that those in Chicago not prone to violence are otherwise law-abiding and don't arm themselves as a deterrent to the violent criminals because doing so would be a crime?
Maybe it is because Indiana soil and air has magical qualities that keep the evil spirit within the guns under control but when those guns are moved into Chicago the evil spirit is free to exert its influence. Of course, we would then still have to ask ourselves why the not yet under evil influence Chicagoan would want an Indiana gun in the first place but that is completely beside the point.
But a law-abiding resident of Chicago won't travel to Indiana to purchase a gun because that would violate federal law; certainly for handguns and possibly for long guns as well. Federal law does not allow for the selling of handguns (private or FFL-involved) across state lines unless facilitated by an FFL holder on the receiving end which means that a Chicago resident could only travel to Indiana to purchase a firearm only if the Chicago resident has an FFL back home for the Indiana seller to ship it to. The Chicago resident might as well stay home. If Illinois law (or Chicago law if allowed by Illinois law) has the same restrictions for long gun purchases as it does for handgun purchases then the law-abiding Chicago resident is still stuck when buying from an FFL because federal law mandates that cross state sales of long guns involving an FFL follow the law of both states involved.
So, why would a law-abiding citizen of Chicago not just break the law in order to protect themselves? Because law-abiding citizens generally like to remain law-abiding citizens.
Yes, if correlation = causation then look no further than El Salvador to prove that the more restrictive gun laws a society has, the more dangerous and the higher the murder rate will be. As in 12 times the murder rate of the US with gun laws pretty much the same as Australia and Europe.
I am glad you had the good sense to use the "no sane" qualifier. I have seen plenty of posts and statistics where they included preventing a mass murder or rape (the perpetrator being shot to death) as an unnecessary gun death.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim my reasoning is wrong because an administration headed by someone opposed to private gun ownership doesn't agree.
My reasoning is very simple and you even admitted that the numbers are correct. We have fewer cars than guns in the US and we have more deaths from cars than guns in the US. The numbers say so. There is no other reasoning involved in that statement. Let's try this with some simple equations and value substitutions.
Let x = 400, y = 500, c = 10 and d = 8. It is a fact that x d. Now, we have evidence from trusted sources that x represents the number of inanimate objects that were involved in c number of events. We also have evidence from trusted sources that y represents the number of another group of inanimate objects that were involved in d number of other events. Therefore, we can say that there is a higher likelihood that a thing from the x group will be involved in an event than there is that a y thing will. In fact, we can say 2.5% of the x things will be involved in an event while only 1.6% of the y things will be involved in an event. One can easily verify that the numbers I quoted are pulled from government agencies such as the CDC and the DOJ. The household estimates are, as i stated, from research groups. Personally, I trust Gallup more than Pew on those numbers as Pew is publicly committed to reducing the number of privately owned guns in the US but even using their numbers, my math is sound.
i was responding to a claim that you are statistically more likely to get shot by your own gun than someone else's and that owning a gun makes you more vulnerable to death by gun. I was pointing out that removing suicides from the equation greatly reduces the chances of being shot by your own gun which is a valid argument to make because that bogus statistic is often used to claim that somebody else will turn the gun on you. I was also pointing out that having a car is more likely to result in being killed by a car than owning a gun is going to result in being killed by a gun. My arguments are statistically valid and people should be given some context and perspective about how unlikely either scenario is.
As I said, people often like to use statistics to show how much more likely you are to be killed by a gun if you own one but aren't told that that only holds true if the guns used to commit suicide are included and people are never told that fewer cars cause more death than guns. Be against gun ownership if you want but don't claim that they cause more death (especially innocent death) than many other things in our lives.
As for an insurance actuary... What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you telling me that State Farm has more insights into the number of guns in the US than any other source such as Gallup and Pew research?
isn't a bar in a college town pretty much a market to get free fucks? Or is that not what you were meant by a free fucking market.
Wait, the Founding Fathers bear the burden of allowing slavery because they broke away from a country that allowed it but didn't stop it?
And because they bear the burden of having allowed slavery, they should be demonized and claims that the world would be better off if they hadn't broken away from the British so that slavery was eventually made illegal pretty much everywhere except in Africa and the Middle East?
The Founding Fathers weren't perfect. I don't know anyone who says they were. However, they were better than the British rulers of their day and they strove for a better society and what they did set the stage for that better society.
Those are valid numbers that you can find for yourself just by looking at federal agency websites.
The claim is that guns are causing more harm than automobiles yet we have more guns than automobiles and automobiles cause more deaths. That is pure fact from federal agencies put out by the current anti-gun administration. You can try to spin it into something different but the fact remains that an automobile in the US is more likely to kill someone than a gun.
can you liberal whackjobs and nutjobs that are so afraid that you piss your pants at the very mention of a gun ever discuss guns in a rational manner without making the claim that a .22 is a 9mm is a rocket launcher is an atomic bomb?
Yes, i see how a desire for a relatively week and small government is readily confused with a desire for a very powerful centralized government that controls most aspects of life.
AmiMoJo's claim was that the attempt happened but things turned out poorly. Certainly if the attempt happened and failed IT HAPPENED and evidence that it happened can be given.
Yes, and some also owned slaves because they inherited them along with the plantations and felt that keeping them to keep the plantation going and being productive was better than just turning the slaves loose. Then the plantation was sold, the slaves freed and given the proceeds upon the death of the particular Founding Father and his wife. It was a very complex time and people made the best choices they could make at the time.
and you completely miss the whole point of driving a performance car. Actually being able to drive it well is the point. Sitting in it while someone else drives it is the equivalent of standing close enough to Jordan Spieth as he tees off that you can hear the swish of his driver and the clink of it hitting the ball instead of actually learning to play golf and improving your own game.
Oh, yeah. Hillary is barely getting by and will have to live on Food Stamps if she loses this election. F'ing moron.
Getting really sick of yet another post from an individual with fewer freedoms than I have complaining about my freedoms. If I wanted to read posts about people being envious of freedom, I'd read blogs written by death row inmates.
On what grounds would you confiscate private property? Any sensible gun law would be less restrictive than what we have today.
Says no valid study of the US ever unless they are including suicides. Your bogus little statistic is often thrown out trying to discourage people from owning guns and then an example of someone losing control of their gun and it being turned on them is tossed out. However, the since the statistic only holds true if suicides are included the valid example should be a suicide. The truth is that roughly 22,000 suicides are committed with guns in the US and it is very likely that 99% or more of them are with a gun from the household. Of the remaining 10,000 or so gun deaths, somewhere around 8,500 of them are murders of which 90% or so are gangbangers and drug dealers killing each other. So, yes, you are more likely to be shot if you own a gun than if you don't but only because 2/3 of those shot purposely shoot themselves and 1/4 of those shot are involved in illegal and violent enterprises. Now, lets look at the likelihood of being shot even if you do own a gun. Surveys show that somewhere between 37% to 47% (left leaning Pew research lower than neutral Gallup) of US households have a gun in them. There are more than 116 million households in the US (US Census Bureau). That gives us between 42 million and 54.5 million households with guns. If we count all gun deaths, a household with a gun has a 1 in 1,703 to a 1 in 1,312 chance of having someone killed with an average of 2.63 persons per household your chances of being killed by living in a household with a gun are between 1 in 3,451 and 1 in 4,479. If you don't plan to commit suicide and you and others in your household aren't involved in drug trafficking, then your chance of being killed while living in a household with a gun is 1 in 36,820 to 1 in 47,778.
On the other hand, over 90% of households own a car and there are roughly the same number of MVA deaths as gun deaths so your chances of dying from a car if you live in a household with a car is 1 in 8,580. So assuming the average American is going to commit suicide or lives with a drug trafficker/gangbanger, you are twice as likely to be killed by a gun while living in a household with a gun than you are to be killed by a car (assuming no suicides from running the car in a closed garage which is a false assumption) while living in a household with a car. However, if we remove self-inflicted and drug-trafficking from the equation so that we can discuss the average American, then you are 4.3 to 5.5 times as likely to die by car while living in a household with a car than you are to die by gun while living in a household with a gun.
Tell me again why living in a household with a gun is risky. All of these numbers are readily available to the public so don't take my word for it, look them up yourself.
"how much does that gun protect your house when you're not in it?" What an asinine question? The only possible reason to even ask that question is if you are the type that believes guns are the inherent evil and do the killing all by themselves.
Maybe, if you live in such a high crime area and want to own a gun and cannot keep the gun on you or closer to you when you leave the house, then you buy a safe and bolt it to the wall or the floor or not at all because most criminals are smart enough to realize that breaking into a high-quality gun safe is not worth the effort.
They are trying. To the point that people are threatened with expulsion from state run universities for committing such aggressive acts as asking "So, where you from?" (yes, they call it microaggression)
The way I read the policy is that people are not allowed to advertise the selling of guns except for licensed dealers who are then not allowed to accept payment via Facebook.
I guess you are correct in that so far Facebook seems to be willing to allow people to post something like "Yeah, Moe's Hardware has a pretty decent assortment of guns and their prices are fair."
And where do you stand in regards to Aaron and Melissa Klein? Should they be forced into bankruptcy for exercising their freedom to not produce pieces of art contrary to their beliefs or should the gay men have exercised their freedom and gone elsewhere?
I can agree that Facebook is within its rights but only if governments agree that the Kleins were within their rights. Once government starts picking and choosing to support a right for only a portion of the population, are we not simply back to the pre-Civil Rights age? Or are we to the point of "my right to discriminate supersedes your right to discriminate because I have chosen to discriminate against a different group than you!"
I agree with you up to the point that, we as a society, have decided that the government WILL NOT allow businesses to pick and choose with whom they do business.
A private restaurant serving a black person being an old example and a professional artist refusing to create a piece of art for a gay wedding being a recent example. Wholesalers picking and choosing which retailers to service for reasons other than ability to pay would be another example. Why then should the government not step in and charge Facebook with discriminatory business practices for refusing to allow federally licensed gun dealers from accessing Facebook's payment processing system when Facebook allows other businesses to access it.
Facebook is happy to have federally licensed gun dealers as part of their community but only as second class citizens. That is discrimination and either discrimination is wrong and must be punished by the state or it is not and the state cannot punish anyone for engaging in it.
Correlation is better than no correlation as is the general form of anti-gun arguments.
As in, "It is simply common-sense that whenever gun laws are more restrictive, then violent crime is reduced." We can examine Chicago to disprove that fallacy within the US and we can look at El Salvador to disprove that fallacy at a national level. Gun banners like to argue a causation when there is not even a correlation.
If they said people could yammer away on their iPhones but Androids had to be turned off, then yes, I would.
To make your analogy relevant and useful, you must compare apples to apples so let's try this one. Would you find it acceptable if Facebook issued a policy that they would no longer facilitate the advertising and selling of gay-themed wedding cakes or maybe of wedding cakes that were not obviously gay-themed?
Facebook could possibly claim that not allowing non-licensed dealers to advertise is likely to lead to illegal sales and not allow those but to not allow licensed dealers (FFL holders) access to sell their legal product while facilitating the sale of other legal products is discrimination against a particular business. One cannot be against discrimination while praising an act of discrimination.
Well, rocket attacks are more difficult and costly than mass murder gun attacks so maybe the prevalence of guns in Israel is helping.
So you are using the argument that criminals commit crimes to help them commit other crimes and the solution for this is to create more laws that might have no affect on society other than to cause people who were law-abiding before to no longer be law-abiding?
I have seen the argument that the guns causing the problem in Chicago are because surrounding states don't have strict enough gun laws and that this is somehow proof that all of Chicago's problems would be solved if only everywhere else had just as many restrictions. Let us examine the major flaw with that argument. All those surrounding areas don't themselves have all the violence issues that Chicago has so Chicago's problems are NOT caused by the guns, they are caused by the people in Chicago. It really is that simple. If the violence problems in Chicago were caused by Indiana's guns, Indiana would have all the same problems as Chicago. Because Indiana isn't having those problems but Chicago is, we have to ask ourselves "Why?" Is it because most people that live in Chicago are inherently more prone to do violence? Is it because that those in Chicago not prone to violence are otherwise law-abiding and don't arm themselves as a deterrent to the violent criminals because doing so would be a crime?
Maybe it is because Indiana soil and air has magical qualities that keep the evil spirit within the guns under control but when those guns are moved into Chicago the evil spirit is free to exert its influence. Of course, we would then still have to ask ourselves why the not yet under evil influence Chicagoan would want an Indiana gun in the first place but that is completely beside the point.
But a law-abiding resident of Chicago won't travel to Indiana to purchase a gun because that would violate federal law; certainly for handguns and possibly for long guns as well. Federal law does not allow for the selling of handguns (private or FFL-involved) across state lines unless facilitated by an FFL holder on the receiving end which means that a Chicago resident could only travel to Indiana to purchase a firearm only if the Chicago resident has an FFL back home for the Indiana seller to ship it to. The Chicago resident might as well stay home. If Illinois law (or Chicago law if allowed by Illinois law) has the same restrictions for long gun purchases as it does for handgun purchases then the law-abiding Chicago resident is still stuck when buying from an FFL because federal law mandates that cross state sales of long guns involving an FFL follow the law of both states involved.
So, why would a law-abiding citizen of Chicago not just break the law in order to protect themselves? Because law-abiding citizens generally like to remain law-abiding citizens.
Yes, if correlation = causation then look no further than El Salvador to prove that the more restrictive gun laws a society has, the more dangerous and the higher the murder rate will be. As in 12 times the murder rate of the US with gun laws pretty much the same as Australia and Europe.
I am glad you had the good sense to use the "no sane" qualifier. I have seen plenty of posts and statistics where they included preventing a mass murder or rape (the perpetrator being shot to death) as an unnecessary gun death.