re: One graph which makes it clear what we must do to reduce gun homicides..

quote:

---

So Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska have a much larger gun death issue than Illinois?

Sorry but that is misleading.

---

It's per capita and includes gun suicides and accidents...which are more common than homicides there...

North Dakota had a murder rate of 2 in '08, but per capita, it slings it into the top 10

quote:

---

I hunt with a guy who has over 90 sxs shotguns

He cussed me every time he sees me with a semi auto that shoots 3.5’s

---

You are a damn heathen and he is a gentleman...

quote:

---

I was part of the 3%, until I lost most of my firearms in an unfortunate boating accident.

---

I’ve shared my experience on here previously but the short version, I was similarly victimized by a boating accident.

Damn the 90s were brutal.

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I made a graph that says as Amazon’s revenues have increase so have the numbers of mass murders. Is Amazon responsible?

The number of mass murders has gone up along with the number of women CEOs? Are those women to blame?

As the percentage of obese Americans increases, so has the number of mass shootings? Is high-fructose syrup to blame for the increased mass shootings?

I largely agree with you, Terry, but I can't help but wonder if that's how you characterize statistics when they appear to support your position.

quote:

---

What the graph shows is Bill Clinton putting in work to reduce homicides

---

Gun crime plummeted in the late 80s through the aughts because of a variety of factors - the "Richmond" model (btw, endorsed by the NRA) gave law enforcement a tool to target and remove those criminals most likely to be involved in gun crime, mental health drugs were undergoing a Renaissance and just a generalized easing off of a peak in gun crime in the 1970s/1980s with drug turf wars (you see vestiges of it in Chicago, Baltimore, parts of L.A., D.C., etc.) dying down at the end of the cocaine cartel era.

I mean, again, there is a PC stumbling block to a lot of this - yes, these school shootings seem far too common and tend to hit a non-traditional demographic of American gun crime - but even with our hundreds of millions of guns and relatively liberal gun laws compared to Europe and Asia, if you removed a particular type of gun crime from our stats (rhymes with "Hurban, slack-on-slack"), then our gun crime stats look shockingly like France, Switzerland, Austria, etc.

But, we can't say that because of the non-PC implications of saying such a thing.

quote:

---

Gun crime plummeted in the late 80s through the aughts because of a variety of factors

---

Really... you didn't get the point did you?

This board is so full of ridiculous shite that even the most over the top sarcasm is thought to be an actual opinion.

Extreme simple version:

Correlation does not equal causation, the graph is useless.

How many of the gun deaths involved legally registered guns?

quote:

---

Makes it fairly clear that an increase in guns didn’t result in an increase in gun homicides, no?

---

It is easy to fall into such logical fallacies if that is what you want to believe. Your conclusion requires that the only variable is the increase in guns. This is not the case. It is a cute graph that fits an agenda, may who want to believe it will.

I am not saying it is not part of the causation, I can't because we just have a simple graph for a highly complex situation. There is just no way to ascribe ANY amount of causation with what you presented if you have more then it might.

Don't get so intellectually lazy that you are easy to lead down the primrose path even if that's where you really want to go.