2 forum members censored on THT

[Noelm]

I can remember when most barber shops were also a sports store, and sold everything from fishing gear to guns, even Kmart had a section with guns on display that you could pick up and "play" with, and the ammo was simply sitting on the shelf, so, in a way, we had pretty slack laws at one time too, but that said, I cannot remember anyone going to Kmart, loading a gun and shooting everyone, somehow along the way, society just went downhill, but then, maybe people did go loopy, but because no one had a camera/phone in their pocket, there was no internet, maybe we just didn't hear about it, or, I was young and didn't know?

[tunaticer]

I think I’m right, we made it 21 years without a mass shooting until Margaret River this year apparently. The term ‘massacre’ (4 or more by a single shooter) is the defining constraint.


I found this interesting. There is an eerie linear correlation simply between gun ownership rates vs gun deaths over the planet. In the absence of any other influence, even America is close to the median - just a fair way up the chart. It seems we will never control that ratio given all the various political climates around the planet can’t, and can only effect change by lowering one variable which is what we are doing here.
Im not anti guns, but I do not see ownership as a basic right. I am comfortable that lives are being saved by the laws we have and that I should be vetted by society should I want one and that the type of rifle should be controlled.

Your stat chart is entirely misleading, where is the Russian, south american and african nations?

[GBC]

Your stat chart is entirely misleading, where is the Russian, south american and african nations?

you are right. The title of the chart states ‘among wealthier nations’, which I didn’t reference correctly.

The article has quite a few other interesting stats - all referenced.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....iver-osmington

[banshee]

Gun laws didn't help the Backpackers at Childers.......or is it only a massacre if it involves a firearm?

[Lovey80]

THeres a lot of debate even among the academics on this. Sure the suicide by firearm rate has dropped considerably. But personally what do I care for the method one tops them self?

The already falling homiced rate by firearm is very much contested. We were already on such a low number comparatively that there was always going to be debate over what factors contributed. I read a paper ages ago that graphed the homiced rate and I think we peaked in the 60’s and were declining very steadily ever since.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...arthur/7254880

[Moonlighter]

The chart doesnt show that the US is near the median - that line across the graph is not a median line as far as I can tell, it appears to simply be a line showing the expected trajectory of the number of gun related deaths you can generally expect as the gun ownership levels increase.

A median line would be horizontal across the graph.

As the authors themselves state, what it shows is that there is a strong correlation between the number of guns owned by the people and the number of gun deaths.

They say:
But when researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers.

And they go on further:

Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.
”A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar,” Zimring and Hawkins wrote. “A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London.”

So, what that means is when we see on the news that some spaced out crackhead in Australia robs a servo, most times he/she will have a knife or other blunt instrument. But in the US, most times he/she has a gun and the willingness to use it.

[Noelm]

Yes, I think that's the issue, and kind of what I alluded to initially, "we" (being Australians) don't seem to have that mentality (yet) I guess because we didn't grow up as a nation carrying a gun on a horse and shooting others to stay alive (the old self defense chant) it's just not us as a nation, that said, whether we need guns, whether guns were taken off us, whether our laws are too strict, or not strict enough will be debated forever.

[GBC]

The chart doesnt show that the US is near the median - that line across the graph is not a median line as far as I can tell, it appears to simply be a line showing the expected trajectory of the number of gun related deaths you can generally expect as the gun ownership levels increase.

A median line would be horizontal across the graph.

As the authors themselves state, what it shows is that there is a strong correlation between the number of guns owned by the people and the number of gun deaths.

They say:
But when researchers control for other confounding variables, they have found time and time again that America’s high levels of gun ownership are a major reason the US is so much worse in terms of gun violence than its developed peers.

And they go on further:

Instead, the US appears to have more lethal violence — and that’s driven in large part by the prevalence of guns.
”A series of specific comparisons of the death rates from property crime and assault in New York City and London show how enormous differences in death risk can be explained even while general patterns are similar,” Zimring and Hawkins wrote. “A preference for crimes of personal force and the willingness and ability to use guns in robbery make similar levels of property crime 54 times as deadly in New York City as in London.”

So, what that means is when we see on the news that some spaced out crackhead in Australia robs a servo, most times he/she will have a knife or other blunt instrument. But in the US, most times he/she has a gun and the willingness to use it.

So you agree with the content but not the wording. A median of deaths would be horizontal, a median of guns would be vertical, and a median ratio would be about where it is drawn. How about "Linear interpolation of the X and Y scatter plot", and yes, both Australia and the USA are showing roughly a multiplication factor of 8-10, ergo if you reduce or increase the number on guns per hundred, the deaths per will increase or decrease accordingly up or down the same linear relationship. We have roughly the same deaths per gun in our country as the states and every other country mentioned - we just have less guns. This can be used by both sides of the gun lobby to argue various things. I'm not here to win the internet nor rid the world of guns, I don't have an agenda, just find it interesting how it all works and how some people are adamant either way.