h6p28d9p:durkin62:h6p28d9p:durkin62:h6p28d9p:dermoosealini: hey America, how those thought
h6p28d9p: durkin62: 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 They do Could you please link me to the source of that graph, @durkin62? It’s a very interesting graph and I’d like to read more about it. Not really, Durkin62.The source for the chart:https://augmentedtrader.com/2012/12/16/guns-and-homicide-worldwide-statistics/This particular analysis is logically flawed for it’s intended purpose. It is based on Guns per Population data, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?fb=nativeWhat that data shows, for example, is the US has 88 firearms per 100 people. It doesn’t show what percentage of households are armed. This is a useless calculation when comparing against murder rates per 100k population; they simply aren’t compatible. If one person owned 300,000,000 guns, would that significantly impact crime rates?A true analysis of the correlation of firearms and homicide rates would require ownership rate within a population, not number of guns per population. There is a huge difference in how these numbers would be reflected in such comparisons.The homicide rate in the US is slowly trending down over time, roughly trending with firearm ownership rates (percentage of households with firearms, not total firearms owned by civilians). I’m not saying they necessarily correlate, but they certainly don’t not correlate. It’s easily Google-able; here are two search terms, free of charge!US firearm ownership rate*andUS homicide rate*You’ll notice that some charts on the firearm ownership rate trend upwards. Look at them - they all list “number of guns”, which again is an entirely useless number when attempting to correlate crime rates.I’m not confirming nor denying the assessment that more guns = more or less murder, I’m just questioning the validity of that chart as “evidence” either way. -- source link