dickslapthestate: charcoalbuddy:pickupyourpistol:charcoalbuddy:pickupyourpistol:charcoalbudd
dickslapthestate: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: charcoalbuddy: pickupyourpistol: h6p28d9p: durkin62: h6p28d9p: dermoosealini: hey America, how those thoughts and prayers working out? Not good, @dermoosealini . Turns out emotional sentiments that don’t suggest any type of preventative action are pretty useless. In other news, politicians have discovered that they can’t get their way a hundred percent of the time and they might have to resort to the horrors of “compromise.” Only time will tell if this train of realizations continue and politicians realize that a majority of society will always place more importance about their fellow living beings than the ownership of an inanimate object. Until then, back to you with news and hot takes. More guns is correlated with less murders. Gun free zones account for virtually all mass attacks. Someday people will learn that sacrificing, lives, freedoms, and responsibility isn’t worth the false sense of security that comes with capitulation to the state. Hahaha, tell that to the 17th century when gun dueling was allowed. So many people died. The most notable among they were; Charles Dickson, Charles Lucas, Stephen Decatur, and Jonathan Cilley. President Jackson’s duel and kill count ranges on anywhere from 5 to a hundred, depending on what source you consult! It got so bad that they had to pass several laws prohibiting it. This included the 1728 Mass. Acts 516 and Article II, Section 9 of the Oregon constitution. So no, guns do not lead to less murder. 1728 Mass. Acts 516: https://law.duke.edu/gunlaws/1728/massachusetts/467694/ Article II, Section 9 Oregon Constitution:https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/Pages/OrConst.aspx Dude. When you have to reference shootings from 400 years ago it an indication that you truly do not understand gun statistics. The chart above clearly shows that while gun ownership in America is at an all time high, gun homicides are at a 20 year low. This chart compares the number of accidental firearm fatalities. The red line is the number of private firearms in the United States, in units of 100,000. At the end of 2013, the estimate was 363.3 million. The green line is the number of fatal firearm accidents, or unintentional firearm fatalities, in the United States. The number in 2013 was the lowest recorded, 505. The absolute numbers are important, but the rate of unintended firearm fatalities per 100,000 population is a better measure of safety. Please post a chart showing the percentage of americans who possess firearms, compared with the crime/homicide/death rates. Number of guns is an absolutely useless statistic. Plot the number of Americans who possess firearms against the crime/homicide/death rate? And do you know what it would show? Heres a hint: If there was a single gun owner or 70 trillion gun owners it would show the EXACT same gun homicide drop over the past 20 years! Jesus folks, this isn’t rocket science. That’s some stellar data analysis right there. Look it up. The percentage of Americans who own guns is dropping slowly but surely over time. As is homicide rates, suicide, all that other stuff. I know the statistics on gun ownership. It’s still estimated that 100,000,000 Americans own 350,000,000 firearms. What is the statistical significance if 90,000,000 or 110,000,000 people owned 350,000,000 firearms? It doesn’t change the fact that the number of firearms in the US is at an all time high and gun homicides have dropped to an all time low over 20 years. A 10% variation in the number of Americans owning guns isn’t going to result in a 50% drop in gun homicides, is it? Or are just the killers giving up their guns? The point is the rate is dropping, which contradicts your charts. Why are you not understanding this? If the rate of homicides, suicides, gun violence are decreasing, and the percentage of armed Americans is decreasing, that’s called a correlation. Causation? Not necessarily. but correlation yes. Contrary to your charts, which show a useless comparison that is a demonstrably false correlation. You’re using % of individuals owning firearms. He’s using the rate of firearms privately owned on a per capita basis. Why are you not understanding this? That’s why he keeps telling you it doesn’t matter how many people own the guns. There are more guns in circulation, yet the homicide rate keeps going down. Just because you can’t seem to grasp what the chart demonstrates doesn’t mean it’s useless. Ok. Clearly you both failed statistics.In order for Firearms to be having a measurable impact on lowering firearms related crimes and incidents (ie ‘good guy with a gun’ stops/deters crime), it has to be true that if the rates of these crimes are dropping over time, the number of ‘good guys with guns’ to stop/deter crime logically has to increase at a similar rate over the same time. That’s just how numbers work. If you say there are 150M more guns more, and 50% less crime now, and claim that that’s proof that guns reduce crime, then it logically follows that if one person owns every single one of those guns, the crime rates would not change from the current rate. Following that logic to it’s extreme, handing over all of the privately owned guns in the country to one party would have no negative impact on crime, which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue.Fewer people own more guns. Every gun owner I know has multiple guns, and is still shopping for more. I own 7 and I’m looking at options for #8. That didn’t use to be the case, historically, but it’s the only reason the number of privately owned firearms is increasing so drastically. There aren’t more “good guys with guns” out there deterring and stopping crime. There are, in fact, fewer.I understand the concept of “if a criminal knows i might have a gun, it is a deterrent!”. What you are asking me to understand is “if a criminal knows i might own SEVERAL guns, it’s demonstrably more of a deterrent!” which is absolutely ridiculous.Realistically, the increase in the number of guns has had significantly less of an impact on crime in the indicated time period than things like cell phones, police training and technology, surveillance, etc. -- source link