Guns, Guns Guns

gcomeau wrote:...snip...
For assault, sure. Relatively subject to interpretation.

Less so for murder. Particularly when you're focusing on developed nations.


...snip...

You really need to do some research. When does a murder become a murder stat in UK?

Whatever,
T2M

PS. I only picked the UK as it is one I have tried. Nothing against the way they do it. Just drove home the fact that I have no clue how to make the stats work as a comparison. Which really sucks as I love stats but, there are definite limits--outside of the Weber universes where they always work once you figure out how to apply them.

PeterZ wrote:Gcomeau,

If guns cause murders, then more murders will occur in proximity to guns. To assert that the lack of boundaries means the proximity of guns is irrelevant to the local murderer rate of a local area yet still hold that guns cause muders is to assume a gun owned in Los Angeles contributes equally to LA murder rate as it does to New York murder rates. Data supporting this position has yet to be presented.

You are simply not listening.

The lack of boundaries means you don't have a damn clue if that gun is in L.A. in the first place. It could very easily, and in a manner that's not going to cause it to show up in casual polling about how many guns people have, have been sold to a guy in New York. Where, yeah, it will have an impact there instead of in L.A.


Prime example, the many many many MANY guns that get bought outside Chicago, then get transported into Chicago, without anyone reporting they've done that. For rather obvious reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

gcomeau wrote:
You are simply not listening.

The lack of boundaries means you don't have a damn clue if that gun is in L.A. in the first place. It could very easily, and in a manner that's not going to cause it to show up in casual polling about how many guns people have, have been sold to a guy in New York. Where, yeah, it will have an impact there instead of in L.A.


Prime example, the many many many MANY guns that get bought outside Chicago, then get transported into Chicago, without anyone reporting they've done that. For rather obvious reasons.


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0

What percentage of guns purchased in one jurisdiction move around? Those that do in large part move with their owners. Even if they do not move with their owners, in order for your assertion to hold, a large percentage of guns must move about the country regularly. You have no proof of that. (Your NY Times data proves the opposite.) Law abiding guns owners don't hop around the country trading or exchanging guns. Law abiding gun owners tend to keep the guns they purchase. Nor do those law abiding gun owners ship the guns they purchase to other would be gun owners elsewhere in the US.

That sort of mass movement simply doesn't happen enough to destroy any or all correlation in the stats in question. If I am mistaken show me the data. The NY Times data shows completely the opposite case than your assertion to be true. Your assertion simply does not hold when considered in the context of the data we are discussing.

Do you see the proximity relationship in the NY Times chart? There is a positive correlation between guns confiscated in Chicago and their proximity to Chicago. Some 31,000 of the 50,000 you mentioned come from Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana. Since Chicago has some of the most extreme gun control regulations, there is a massive incentive to import guns in illegally. Even so 60% of the imported guns come from near by. For those localities that do not have such restrictive gun laws, the incentives to import guns lessens. The percentage of guns that are confiscated by the police will originate closer to home for almost any other jurisdiction. This suggests that there is no great migration of guns.

So even if Chicago is an outlier, some percentage of guns used for purposes that are subject to confiscation by the authorities will remain relatively to close to where they were purchased. That percentage is likely greater than 60% of all guns likely used in a crime and so are subject to confiscation. So, proximity of gun purchase/ownership is indeed directly related to guns used in crime and by extension murder. Your NY Times data supports this assertion. So, if guns are directly related to homicides, there will be a correlation between the per capita murder rate and the percentage gun ownership in a jurisdiction. There is no correlation, which suggests there is no direct relationship between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.

I am listening and understand the statistical relationships being discussed here. Do you?

PeterZ wrote:What percentage of guns purchased in one jurisdiction move around? Those that do in large part move with their owners. Even if they do not move with their owners, in order for your assertion to hold, a large percentage of guns must move about the country regularly. You have no proof of that. (Your NY Times data proves the opposite.) Law abiding guns owners don't hop around the country trading or exchanging guns. Law abiding gun owners tend to keep the guns they purchase. Nor do those law abiding gun owners ship the guns they purchase to other would be gun owners elsewhere in the US.

That sort of mass movement simply doesn't happen enough to destroy any or all correlation in the stats in question. If I am mistaken show me the data. The NY Times data shows completely the opposite case than your assertion to be true. Your assertion simply does not hold when considered in the context of the data we are discussing.

While the TOTAL # of guns moving around may be different, the # of legitimate LEAGAL guns that move around is very low. The gun owners generally keep their guns or sell them locally. Some may move around with their owner or be sold elsewhere, but most don’t. Those guns seized in one area but originated in another are mostly ILLEAGAL guns, so any attempt at an artificial “boundary” would fail in much the same way prohibition failed, miserably. What are they going to do? Destroy all highways leading to Chicago & put screeners in all the rail station & private docks? If any law is passed to restrict gun transport in the US, do you expect the criminals to say “well, darn, it’s against the law, so I can’t do it!” Yea right, like those idiotic warning signs at construction zones telling people to “Obey warning signs it’s the law”, like someone who doesn’t “Obey warning signs” is going to see this warning sign & suddenly decide to obey it when they never obeyed any other.

MAD-4A,

I don't disagree. My point was that most of the illegal guns siezed in Chicago originated near by. That suggests that my earlier analysis indicating no positive correlation between the percentage of gun ownership and per capita homicides in a local region is accurate. That the lack of effective boundaries do not in fact lead to mass migrations accross country of guns used for illegal purposes. The Chicago data supports my view.

Even though guns CAN move about like water, they do not.

http://bearingarms.com/columbine-massac ... aringArms1

92-percent of all mass shootings in the United States since 2009 have taken place in these so-called “gun-free zones.

Talking about how criminals don't obey laws

Saw a cartoon somewhere: a ski-masked man with a rifle was passing a No-guns-zone sign, and thinking to himself that he would have at least twenty minutes before he was stopped. He was wondering how many he could kill first.


There was a story somewhere that had the lead character part of whose training was to look around and describe everything in sight that could be an improvised weapon. This would be an interesting, hopefully not needed, form of education, stretching the imagination.

92-percent of all mass shootings in the United States since 2009 have taken place in these so-called “gun-free zones.

They are not gun free zones, they are more properly names violence zones. Since any law abiding person cannot protect themselves there, they are the perfect place for those with less noble intentions to go and ply their trade.

Mas Ayoob said it best, "Predators seek Prey, they do not want to encounter the little cute bunny that has large fangs"

bigrunt wrote:

92-percent of all mass shootings in the United States since 2009 have taken place in these so-called “gun-free zones.

They are not gun free zones, they are more properly names violence zones. Since any law abiding person cannot protect themselves there, they are the perfect place for those with less noble intentions to go and ply their trade.

Mas Ayoob said it best, "Predators seek Prey, they do not want to encounter the little cute bunny that has large fangs"

Oh yes Like the Posleen and Bun-Bun

Recently read where an officer who stopped someone for speeding was shown his concealed carry license, as state law required. The officer thanked him He also did his duty re the speeding.

I've been trying to think of any case where a mass killing didn't take place in a "gun free" zone, and couldn't. However, I did remember reading of several cases where a trained and armed citizen defended their own self and/or others.

"Starship Trooper" may not be as off track as some people think.

For believers: although the Bible records a number of examples of people misusing the weapons of the time, it also cites examples of people using them to defend their society. And when John the Baptist was asked by soldiers what they should do, he basically replied; no misuse of your position. Luke 3:14. For a summary, look at Romans 13:1>7. A soldier (or police) should be a protector (not Niven type) and when they aren't, have failed. Too often the big shots at the top misuse them.

Anyone know about the "Oath Keepers" group? Don't they take oaths that basically say they won't oppress even if ordered to do so?

The Judicial Watch group has the motto: Because no one is above the law. Recently they used the FOIA to pry loose many emails about the Fast and Furious operation. To take a look, go to:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/ff/

Not quite. The Oathkeepers vow to not obey any orders that they think violates the constitution of the United States, ironically it appears that they will violate federal and state constitutions to do so.

Annachie wrote:Not quite. The Oathkeepers vow to not obey any orders that they think violates the constitution of the United States, ironically it appears that they will violate federal and state constitutions to do so.

I wonder, how could they violate the federal constitution in order to not violate the constitution of the United States. At present is seem the big shots are reserving the violation of the US constitution as their own turf.

BTW, anyone studying the US constitution should also work through the Declaration of Independence. This basically covers the primary principles involved. Better yet, study the Federalist papers for a solid understanding. The founders did their research.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... sletterad=

To those who simply don’t understand what transpired here (looking at you Everytown, gun control advocates), this is called defensive gun use.

The wild west tamed down when reasonably effective and honest law arrived. It looks like the present spirit of lawlessness is returning it.