Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well, good to see Stripe on his usual, substantive and erudite form then...
lain:
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Well, good to see Stripe on his usual, substantive and erudite form then...
lain:
Meanwhile, to help Yor connect his dots, taking this year's months by twos:
Each figure represents a murder victim of mass shootings.
January:
Wounded: 138
February:
Wounded: 109
Each figure represents a murder victim of mass shootings.
January:
Wounded: 138
February:
Wounded: 109
Last edited:
Death tolls from mass shootings this year, continued.
March:
Wounded: 92
April:
Wounded: 176
March:
Wounded: 92
April:
Wounded: 176
With 17,000 murders in a year, that's over 1,400 per month. I'm seeing 58 in March and 46 in April from mass shooting shooting rampage domestic terrorism mass murderer war crimes. About 4% of total murders. And how many of these are perpetrated with "military style" "assault weapons?" They're perpetrated with handguns, shotguns sometimes, and rifle sometimes. Mostly handguns.
Good to see you finally skipping through the unnecessary verbiage and properly categorizing the sum of your work product. :thumb:
The "Sent from..." part normally being the highlight. Good on you.
Right. Across the year so far it looks like this:
Jan. 62
Feb. 44
Mar. 58
Apr. 46
May 30
June 60
July 42
Aug. 34
Sept. 32
Oct. 94
Nov. 58
I think that will be about what mass shootings have contributed to the homicide death toll by year's end.
I suspect it depends on how you categorize and divide. By way of illustration, there were 58 individual murders perpetrated by one man in one event, using an assault rifle, discounting his own suicide. There were 26 murders in one event in Texas. 4 in Chicago died by what witnesses say sounded like machine gun fire. So a statistically significant number without more delving.
I'm betting the number of those that were the result of breech loaded weapons and six shooters is going to be really, really low, to divide along another line.
The same argument could be extended to "The Donald's" Muslim ban and his recent retweeting of anti-Islamic propaganda videos from a British white-supremacist group!
Compared to gun violence, the number of Americans killed/wounded as a result of terrorist acts, in any given year, is miniscule - and yet this President continues to foster the irrational fear of Islamic militants as the greatest threat to public safety!
Last edited:
United States spends about $100 billion per year seeking to deter, disrupt, or protect against domestic terrorism.
The probability of being murdered in America is 1:249
- killed by a refugee terrorist 1:46,198,873
- killed by an illegal immigrant 1:138,564,813
Compared to the threat posed by a refugee terrorist — which the president’s executive order is specifically designed to curtail — the data suggest the typical American is:
********************************************************************************
• 6 times more likely to die from a shark attack (one of the rarest forms of death on Earth)
• 29 times more likely to die from a regional asteroid strike
• 260 times more likely to be struck and killed by lightning
• 4,700 times more likely to die in an aeroplane or spaceship accident
• 129,000 times more likely to die in a gun assault
• 407,000 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle incident
• 6.9 million times more likely to die from cancer or heart disease
• winning the Powerball jackpot are many times better than those being killed in a foreign terror attack
Last edited:
All the ones I've listed in this thread that I said you ignored. Thanks for admitting.
I've read your links throughout the thread. And these links, too. Hemenway is listed in all your links for a reason. He has a proven bias in his work on gun control.
But, let's assume he's doing something right in his papers. How do you explain the contradiction?
The more rural we get the higher the gun ownership rate is. Not even Hemenway disputes that. Meanwhile, you've pointed out how the US has a homicide rate of about 5.3 per 100k people. But how is that when most big cities have a homicide rate that is a great deal higher? Chicago has their rate near 20 per 100k, and there are a lot of cities, all big ones, that have rates a great deal higher - up to 60 per 100k. Hemenway gets around this by reviewing papers that have a wide area in order to get the numbers he needs. And he includes papers that ignore the high-homicide rate areas of cities by lumping them in with the low-homicide rate areas.
Further, the US has over 3000 counties but around 60 of them have over 1/2 the homicides (incidentally, these include the high-homicide rate cities mentioned above). And if you say that's where 1/2 the population resides, you'd be wrong. Even if these 60 counties were the highest population ones, it would take more than the next 60 to get 1/2 the population.
Or let's look at your data - somehow you think the homicide rate going up and then down while the gun ownership rate went up means something to prove that more guns equals more crime?
The conclusion you should have is that it's not the guns. It's not the gun rates. It's something else.
So, my next questions for you are: how do you define self defense? Is the reason you are trying to ban almost all guns and regulate the use of those left heavily mainly because of mass shootings?
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Good to see you finally skipping through the unnecessary verbiage and properly categorizing the sum of your work product. :thumb:
The "Sent from..." part normally being the highlight. Good on you.
:rotfl:
way 2 go
Well-known member
List of Killings in
the Name of Islam:
2017
This is part of the list of killings in the name of Islam maintained by TheReligionofPeace.com. Most of these incidents are terror attacks. A handful are honor killings or Sharia executions. During this time period, there were 1888 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 14,160 people were killed and 13583 injured.
And beyond this, the people who do mass killings don't come with a label on them that says "we do mass killings" like muslims do. Guns, unlike muslims, don't have a book that tells them to have unbelievers and heretics submit to them even as far as death.
I just don't recall you citing to them. The last time I went through most of your posts there was very little of that. Which, in particular, do you think make your case?
No, he isn't. So, no.
Look at comparative rates and concentration of poverty. The poor are disproportionately responsible for violent crime.
Detroit and Chicago are habitually high violence offenders. The last year has been a bad time for many cities. Not all, by any stretch. Take New York City, 3.0 and ranked the 10th safest city in the world. What helps them? It's located in a state with the 5th toughest gun laws and the 3rd best homicide rate.
Actually only three cities in your survey sample were over 50 per 100k.
Cite to source? But I wouldn't say they have half the population. They don't need to. They have significantly higher populations of the poor in concentration. That's the thing you still aren't looking at.
But beyond that, the main reason to look at larger populations is to account for that. So we take states, which have unifiers, like varying degrees of gun law requirements. And we look to see if within that population we see any patterns compared to other, disparate populations. When we do that you get the statistics you don't want to talk about, the way lax gun laws in states see them on the worst end of gun violence while states with stronger gun laws have significantly lower gun deaths per 100k, as with those Western European nations I noted a few times.
There are a lot of variables in play that produce violence. Depending on where some of those are you're going to see fluctuations in the output. And given the saturation of guns in this country I'd expect those variables to control rates. If you want to impact them you have to find the common thread, the weapon itself. And there the larger and more accurate assessments remain, among larger comparative populations.
What I've held from the start is a bit different than your painting of it. It's as simple as this: limit the most destructive means of gun violence and you will save thousands of lives each year. Create universal, strong gun law relating and you will save thousands of lives each year. If more guns equalled more safety we'd be the safest nation on earth, instead of by far the least safe of our democratic cousins.
For legal purposes I use the legal definition.
You mean trying to see to it that the sort of gun people have is the least likely to facilitate mass murder.
If by regulate the use heavily you mean register and take a training course.
It's one way to effectively deal with it and reduce gun violence and the maimings and injuries that come along with it.
Convenient.
Yes he is. But I don't blame you for thinking he isn't. He's famous for reports that don't provide his data to 3rd party researchers in a timely manner, and his flawed methods go uncorrected. But he doesn't care because big media will publish his work uncritically and he gets grant money like a champ. And like this thread shows, you aren't interested in both sides anyway.
There are other items shown by the data, if you had been interested, that are more highly correlated with homicide than poverty. But you don't want to talk about that.
That's what I said. And you still missed the point.
Half of all homicides occurred in about 60 counties out of over 3000. You can take the top ~60 most populous counties to help your data and it still proves my point.
So that you can ignore the better data between urban and non-urban areas within states.
Your confirmation bias is too strong for you to see anything otherwise.
First, the data shows it won't save thousands of lives. Second, if you are willing to concede there will be horrible unintended consequences of the laws you propose then that's a topic we can discuss.
I would be totally on board with you if the data showed this were true. But the data shows this is wrong.
If one goes to where there are less restrictions/bans on guns and the gun rates are a great deal higher, the homicide rates are low - right near all our democratic cousins.
And for for purposes of discovering truth?
But it's bad to make sweeping laws based on rarer but more sensational events. It's a way of treating the vast numbers of other homicides with contempt.
The truth often is...I looked over dozens of your posts without them. Looking back at a few then. It will take a minute because you often omit linkage that precludes going back to your posts easily and sometimes you start responding to me without quoting me, meaning that I'm not made aware by the TOL machinery that you've responded and some of those can get buried:
1. The 538 piece was interesting, but didn't contradict any point I'd made.
2. You linked to a YouTube video about "never letting a crisis go to waste".
3. You linked to a report that noted given the comparative rarity of mass shootings it's difficult to statistically prove the impact of gun laws.
But that article is a bit less certain of its premise: "But mass shootings still account for only a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 gun murder incidents in the U.S. each year.1 This suggests that measures aimed at preventing mass shootings would save more lives if they also prevent other kinds of gun death.
4. Eight Ways We Committ Felonies without realizing it...mostly nonsense and cases where a person might not understand their actions constitute a crime (and where few prosecutors would care).
5. Prohibition was a Success article.
6. An Australian Economics institute where a guy stepped out of his wheelhouse to argue against me. Among the gems in that one, his insistence that the U.S. murder rate is really not nearly that bad if you only count murders where convictions occur as a result of arrest.
lain: I stopped caring about that institute right about there.That sampling appears to be the sort of authority you feel was overlooked.
I haven't shied from talking about issues related to violence. I simply found your rejection of talking about poverty remarkable.
No, it isn't. You wrote, "and there are a lot of cities, all big ones, that have rates a great deal higher - up to 60 per 100k"
Not three, but a lot. It's a misleading statement angling for a larger impression. Three isn't a lot of anything, from three minutes to three dollars.
Well, no. I've been speaking to the impact of tough gun laws. If every state has both areas but differing law it's the appropriate way to examine the point. New York is your chief problem. Huge city there and outlying. Yet despite that and having tougher gun laws their death per 100k by gun violence is remarkably lesser than, say, Alabama's, even though we don't have the same urban density. What we do have is comparatively weak gun laws and lots of gun owners.
From states to countries, the data demonstrates that more guns and less regulation equals higher body counts.
I'm sure someone said that after the Titanic sank. Of course, often enough tragic events merely focus our collective attention and the result is to the demonstrable good. It can be here as well.
Not at all, given I'm trying to reduce gun violence, unintentional and intentional (safety courses to bans on particular guns). I'm treating the entire subject seriously. I suspect you're attempting this tactic to try to level the ground between us, but the truth is that only one of us has suggested that any part of gun violence is beneath our considered action, and that someone is you. The guy who said mass murder victims are statistically insignificant and that we shouldn't change laws to address them.
When talking about issues related to violence you have always swerved away from the issues and straight into the vague issue of "poverty".
Yes, and we've acknowledged that effectively taking everyone's gun away will do it. But that solution comes with consequences, which is all we've been saying all along.
Yor, that's just not true. You've been the fellow talking about non-specific programs to deal with gangs, black markets, and broken homes--all of which have programs and/or laws and efforts aimed at them. I've been talking about specific steps, laws to impact violence and mass shootings. And I've noted that poverty and violence are disproportionately wed. Crime and violence are so heavily found in that Venn Diagram, the overlap so staggering, that it would be grossly irresponsible to fail to note it.
Once you recognize the relation you can understand why limiting the worst of guns, those tailor made for mass shooting and injury, would also necessarily lower gun violence and limit the opportunities for mass murder. It's the same principle as the extreme you note, without being that thing at all.
So does a hug. Almost any act has consequence. Reducing gun violence and death definitely has one. It limits the expression of our Second Amendment right in a fairly profound way. And libel laws profoundly impact speech. Not all consequences are to be desired and not all are to be feared.
Meanwhile, in the first week of December we've had five mass shooting incidents with 16 wounded and 4 dead. Here's hoping that's that total remains unchanged as we approach Christmas.
Town, that's just not true. I've offered specific things we can do to deal with gangs, black markets, and broken homes.
I've gone further to point out the specific programs that are not working.
And with these areas being so highly correlated to homicide while gun ownership rates are not, a logical person would consider these things first before they consider gun ownership rates.
No, you're hoping the laws you make will impact violence despite the data showing otherwise. Your laws, maybe, will impact mass shootings, but even that is suspect according to the data.
But gangs, black markets, and broken homes are even more tightly wed, and they have solutions that work every time those solutions are tried... unlike the vague solutions to poverty.
It would probably lower gun violence, but bans/restrictions on guns do not translate to lower homicide rates. In the same way, increases in gun ownership rates may not show decreases in homicide rates, they don't show increases either.
The homicide rates are lower where the gun ownership rates are higher. Appeal to poverty if you want, but you are forced to admit it isn't guns that are the problem.
The consequences of banning/restricting guns is quite bad over the long term. We know this for at least a couple reasons. The first is that if a tyrannical government were to arise in the US, they would certainly be thankful that people don't have unrestricted access to guns. Since there is no downside to unrestricted access to guns in a free society, there is no reason to open that door.
The second obvious reason is that even though the data is not 100% clear, there are more studies that affirm defensive use of guns than not. Since there are a great number of biased and flawed studies like those from Hemenway, we should be wiser and stop worrying about gun ownership rates.
Every link I made had a point. You ignored every one with a weak excuse. At least I read yours and have good reasons against them.
But one should be wary of academic proposals when experience disputes their findings. Mainstream academics are famous for promoting tyranny. In fact, without even knowing anything more about him than his biased and flawed studies, I'll bet he cannot define what a fascist is.
We'll agree you might affect shootings with gun bans/restrictions, but there will be more death and violence because of the same.