Poll: Do you think more guns means less crime?
Yes
No
I did until I saw these data
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(13-04-2015 03:10 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I know, I know, this horse has been beaten to death at times, but I found myself back in this clusterfuck of a topic in the last couple of days and I've reencountered this moronic argument. So, I decided to look a little closer at this specific claim that "more guns means less crime, including murders and violent crime."

If this is indeed true, then gun ownership should highly correlate with reduced crime rates and lower murder rates. We will stick to just the US for the time being because trying to compare the US to other countries is a bit hairy because I don't know who to compare us to. Do I compare us to other countries with comparable intentional homicide rates as per (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...tion=ufi)? That puts the US (rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people) on par with places like Yemen (4.8) and Latvia (4.7). There are not really any comparable countries with similar cultures and governments to the US, because places like Finland (1.6), Australia (1.1), the UK (1.0), Canada (1.8), Sweden (0.7), etc, all have intentional homicide rates that are less than half of the US rate. I mean, even if we try and take the best case scenario of somewhere like Sweden, we find that their firearm laws are much more restrictive than ours (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/sweden), even though they have a lot of guns per person, as we do in the US.

So, we can just look at within the US to try and get a sense of whether or not this correlation holds true. I have posted the graphs from this on the post, and the data comes from these sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violenc...ation=ufi) and (https://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank...tion=ufi).

So, what do we see in the plot of murder rate vs gun ownership? No trend (r^2 of 0.01). So, more guns does not mean a lower murder rate.

Violent crime v. murder rate? No trend (r^2 of 0.02)

It would seem that more guns most definitely does not mean less crime or murders.

The last two graphs are me looking for a trend. The one is population density vs gun ownership, and we see something curious. The lower the population density, the higher the gun ownership percentage. Now, typically I would make the case that lower population density correlates with reduced crime rates and murder rates. Primarily because the less dense the population, the lower the rate of incidence. So, population density should correlate with murder rate, but it doesn't (r^2 of 0.01). Which is very curious. As it turns out, the 4 states you see with the high population densities are New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and they all have abnormally low murder rates for their population density. Otherwise, there is no clear trend or abnormality. As such, my prediction that lower population density means lower murder rate also appears untrue.

I'll hypothesize then that there should be a lower murder rate with lower population density, but lower population density correlates with higher gun ownership rate, which may influence the murder rate such that it is elevated above what it might be otherwise.

To summarize, more guns doesn't mean safer.

In the interest of full disclosure I’ll start by saying that I’m a gun owner and a conceal carry permit holder. I’m not an NRA member (I despise much of their platform), but I do advocate responsible ownership; I’m completely cool with background checks and many other reasonable restrictions, as well as training and certification. Since I don’t live or commute in an inherently dangerous place I very rarely carry my pistol. I do carry it in very special circumstances were I have to be exposed for long periods of time in places known to be less than safe. I also love math and statistics 

I don’t think using a coefficient of determination is appropriate here. This technique was developed to compare predictive models to sample population via a linear regression. Gun ownership and crime rates are not necessarily numbers in the same equation, and therefore a linear regression is kind of dicey. I understand your findings but I’m not 100% comfortable with the methodology. That being said; I will be in soft agreement with your results for the sake of this discussion.

As I was trying to repeat your process, I have come to realize your hypothesis “more guns do not equal more safety” has an important corollary. In truth the data shows that gun ownership in a State-to-State comparison does not correlate with the murder rates at all. Essentially; the hypothesis of “more guns do not equal more violence” is just as correct. States with similar murder rates can have vastly different percentages of gun ownership, with DC being a complete outlier; with the lowest gun ownership in the nation, yet the highest murder rates, while Wyoming with 60% gun ownership is number 43. If you simply sort murder rates from highest to lowers, and plot their states respective gun ownership percentages you realize gun violence is divorced from gun ownership in a state-to-state comparison.

I’m of the opinion that the U.S. has a great thing going with the Second Amendment protections. Having immigrated from a country with very restrictive gun laws and ridiculously high crime rates, I completely appreciate the need (notice I didn’t say the Right) for people to be able to defend themselves and their families. I don’t justify people having five AR-15 and 20K rounds, and I think restrictions on RPG’s, grenades and armor piercing rounds are appropriate. I don’t want my cranky neighbor to have an armored vehicle with a .50cal on top! On the other hand I’m perfectly comfortable knowing others around me have concealed weapons, as long as they have gone through the same process I have to earn their CCL’s and I’m against any attempts to disarm the people “for their own good”.

Cheers!


Attached File(s)
.pdf  gunviolence.pdf (Size: 187.08 KB / Downloads: 25)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bwolf74's post
29-04-2015, 01:14 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
What's wrong with owning an AR-15?

It's function is exactly the same as a Ruger Mini-14, or any other semi-automatic rifle. It shoots a bullet when you pull a trigger.

It's "scary looks" does NOT tend to invoke illegal use.

Arbitrary limits of ammo, magazine capacity or visual aspects of a weapon does NOTHING to deter crime. It simply allows demonizing of a class of weapon - or a person's purchasing habits.

Ultimately - weapons are inanimate objects -- and can only be "evil" if some person puts it to that use.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
29-04-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
I am not sure what you mean by this "I don’t think using a coefficient of determination is appropriate here. This technique was developed to compare predictive models to sample population via a linear regression."

The point of the regression is to look for a correlation, that is it.

"Gun ownership and crime rates are not necessarily numbers in the same equation, and therefore a linear regression is kind of dicey."
Not the point. Correlations don't have to be similar types of data, even causations don't have to be. For instance, climate change can drive speciation, and they are not anywhere near the same types of variables or in the same sorts of "equations".


"I’m completely cool with background checks and many other reasonable restrictions, as well as training and certification."
This is ultimately the point, if we are going to have guns, we need to make sure those that have them are mentally competent to use them, which includes proper training and good mental health.

"...I completely appreciate the need (notice I didn’t say the Right) for people to be able to defend themselves and their families."
Defense is one thing, but I'd argue they are poor instruments for defense. Good home security and less-lethal options of defense can be just as effective. Too many people becoming compulsively suicidal and using guns (which have much higher rates of successful suicide than other methods), as well as too much domestic violence where guns are brandished about or used for me to think that the defense argument is a sound one.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
29-04-2015, 01:26 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:14 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What's wrong with owning an AR-15?

It's function is exactly the same as a Ruger Mini-14, or any other semi-automatic rifle. It shoots a bullet when you pull a trigger.

It's "scary looks" does NOT tend to invoke illegal use.

Arbitrary limits of ammo, magazine capacity or visual aspects of a weapon does NOTHING to deter crime. It simply allows demonizing of a class of weapon - or a person's purchasing habits.

Ultimately - weapons are inanimate objects -- and can only be "evil" if some person puts it to that use.

Oh fuck off seriously, if people were dying at one food joint to the amount guns both legal and illegal were getting people killed, the menu would change or the joint would be put out of business.

No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips anymore than they need grandes or jets. You are just fucking justifying your own gun fetish.

Australia put their foot down on those things after a mass murder and guess what, they are still not a fascist state because they are SANE unlike morons like you.

This has never been about rights, this is about the makers and the NRA scaring gullible assholes like you into doing nothing. The NRA is not a safety organization, at least not the one it started out as. They are just another big business lobby group out to protect its market and profits.

FUCK YOUR GUN FETISH!

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
29-04-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:26 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:14 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What's wrong with owning an AR-15?

It's function is exactly the same as a Ruger Mini-14, or any other semi-automatic rifle. It shoots a bullet when you pull a trigger.

It's "scary looks" does NOT tend to invoke illegal use.

Arbitrary limits of ammo, magazine capacity or visual aspects of a weapon does NOTHING to deter crime. It simply allows demonizing of a class of weapon - or a person's purchasing habits.

Ultimately - weapons are inanimate objects -- and can only be "evil" if some person puts it to that use.

Oh fuck off seriously, if people were dying at one food joint to the amount guns both legal and illegal were getting people killed, the menu would change or the joint would be put out of business.

No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips anymore than they need grandes or jets. You are just fucking justifying your own gun fetish.

Australia put their foot down on those things after a mass murder and guess what, they are still not a fascist state because they are SANE unlike morons like you.

This has never been about rights, this is about the makers and the NRA scaring gullible assholes like you into doing nothing. The NRA is not a safety organization, at least not the one it started out as. They are just another big business lobby group out to protect its market and profits.

FUCK YOUR GUN FETISH!

Leave him be, his only goal in the thread has been to troll it.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 01:36 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
We have had 4 people vote "yes" in the poll though, and only the troll has commented.

I'd like to know why these people have voted yes given the paucity of support for it.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:32 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:26 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Oh fuck off seriously, if people were dying at one food joint to the amount guns both legal and illegal were getting people killed, the menu would change or the joint would be put out of business.

No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips anymore than they need grandes or jets. You are just fucking justifying your own gun fetish.

Australia put their foot down on those things after a mass murder and guess what, they are still not a fascist state because they are SANE unlike morons like you.

This has never been about rights, this is about the makers and the NRA scaring gullible assholes like you into doing nothing. The NRA is not a safety organization, at least not the one it started out as. They are just another big business lobby group out to protect its market and profits.

FUCK YOUR GUN FETISH!

Leave him be, his only goal in the thread has been to troll it.

I wasn't doing it for him, I was doing it for the sane in our country, including liberal gun owners who accept we have a problem. The more of us who raise our voices the less fear they have the quicker we can solve problems. We don't want to get rid of all guns, we just want to prevent the makers and NRA from obstructing any change because of protecting profits.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
29-04-2015, 01:40 PM
"More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:26 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips!

Who are you to decide that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:26 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:14 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  What's wrong with owning an AR-15?

It's function is exactly the same as a Ruger Mini-14, or any other semi-automatic rifle. It shoots a bullet when you pull a trigger.

It's "scary looks" does NOT tend to invoke illegal use.

Arbitrary limits of ammo, magazine capacity or visual aspects of a weapon does NOTHING to deter crime. It simply allows demonizing of a class of weapon - or a person's purchasing habits.

Ultimately - weapons are inanimate objects -- and can only be "evil" if some person puts it to that use.

Oh fuck off seriously, if people were dying at one food joint to the amount guns both legal and illegal were getting people killed, the menu would change or the joint would be put out of business.

No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips anymore than they need grandes or jets. You are just fucking justifying your own gun fetish.

Australia put their foot down on those things after a mass murder and guess what, they are still not a fascist state because they are SANE unlike morons like you.

This has never been about rights, this is about the makers and the NRA scaring gullible assholes like you into doing nothing. The NRA is not a safety organization, at least not the one it started out as. They are just another big business lobby group out to protect its market and profits.

FUCK YOUR GUN FETISH!

40,000 people die annually in automobile accidents, the auto companies are still in business.

It has always been about rights, though there are business interests in addition.
If you don't like the Second Amendment, get it changed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: "More Guns means Safer" the nonsensical pro-NRA argument
(29-04-2015 01:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2015 01:26 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Oh fuck off seriously, if people were dying at one food joint to the amount guns both legal and illegal were getting people killed, the menu would change or the joint would be put out of business.

No one needs a fucking army style riffle or big clips anymore than they need grandes or jets. You are just fucking justifying your own gun fetish.

Australia put their foot down on those things after a mass murder and guess what, they are still not a fascist state because they are SANE unlike morons like you.

This has never been about rights, this is about the makers and the NRA scaring gullible assholes like you into doing nothing. The NRA is not a safety organization, at least not the one it started out as. They are just another big business lobby group out to protect its market and profits.

FUCK YOUR GUN FETISH!

40,000 people die annually in automobile accidents, the auto companies are still in business.

It has always been about rights, though there are business interests in addition.
If you don't like the Second Amendment, get it changed.

Not all of the automobile companies and they have had to make significant changes to their product to improve safety.

cars are not guns. Cars are not designed to kill, guns are.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: