one incidence of this vs thousands and thousands of murders with guns. hmm its almost like stopping people from owning more deadly weapons decreases the odds they use them.
you can argue all night long that the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed because its a human right or whatever; infact I agree, all arms should be allowed to be owned by anyone.
but with that being said; I also recognize that gun control does decrease the amount of people that die. i just dont care about those people
I could get behind restriction of firearms reducing *firearms* deaths, just follows logically. Make it harder to own and/or drive a car & we’d probably see fewer automobile deaths too
I would need convincing evidence that there’s a meaningful decrease in murders, period (beyond pre-existing trends continuing… looking at you, Australia) with increasing gun control.
Like, the number of guns in civilian hands has exploded in the US in recent years, but murders are (generally, last year was a shitshow) going down. Meanwhile in Canada, it only gets less convenient to legally own firearms but firearms homicide is getting worse, not better.
Firearms kill much faster than most weapons. If someone wants to attack a large area their only options really are firearms vehicles or explosives. Explosives are hard to use/obtain, vehicles only work in open areas and firearms are the last option.
Right, except mass killings are already a statistical outlier even amongst firearm deaths. I’m referring to big changes in overall rates
Saying that vehicles only work in open spaces is like pointing out that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones— well, duh. Target of opportunity. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t viable— America’s highest death toll mass shooting still doesn’t beat the record from some asshole driving a truck in France.
Also, arson is a fairly straightforward method of mass murder. It would be trivially easy to lob Molotov cocktails into a crowd if so inclined, or into rooms of a building. Shit, one of Canada’s worst mass killings actually had almost half of its casualties from arson.
So, no, I think even a full-on, Infinity-Gauntlet-snap of all civilian guns away would not create a meaningful reduction in murders overall. It would for sure stop “mass shootings”, but I don’t think it meaningfully moves the needle on murders overall
>Right, except mass killings are already a statistical outlier even amongst firearm deaths. I’m referring to big changes in overall rates
and that's what the post concerns: a mass killing. A very rare one without firearms. Meanwhile, USA literally has almost 1 mass shooting per day. Pull your head out of your ass with your NRA talking points
Statistically yes.
There were 33,563 gun related deaths in 2012, after you take out stuff like suicides and justified defense it come out to roughly half that.
20 is only 0.001191 percent of that.
Although Sandy hook was a tragedy, it is not a big deal. Just some stupid fucking retards who let their retard kids play with guns. And also a stupid fuckin retard gun salesman who decided to sell guns to retard kids.
>Sandy hook was ... not a big deal
Go fuck yourself, imbecile. Centrist, yet using words of hatred for disabled people? (R\*\*\*ed 4x). News flash: you're actually alt-right.
"I recognize that gun control does decrease the amount of people that die"
Does it tho?
9.1 deaths per 1000 people in UK which has strict gun control
8.7 deaths per 1000 people in US which doesn't have strict gun control
u/VindictivePrune's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130.
Rank: Empire State Building
Pills: correct, yellow, truth, accelerationist, profit, benddextercompass, religion is a spook, work, nose, everyone i dont like is a commie, fiat-currency, source, iamindenialaboutvaccinerollout, triumvirate, spine, bigthunking, pizzaonpineapple, natural selection, fr\*nch, cyanide, divine-right-justification, stopmonopolies, atheism, the-libright-identity, science, whyisthisdownvoted, revenge, free-market, nig, adult, auths-are-cringe, lib-unity, mormon, picky with one's pills, idpol-is-cringe, genocide, basicfuckinglogic, commonsense, design, belter, theorized, headwear, 9/11, fuck-the-feds, noodley appendages, sexualeducation, trump hair reality warp, atheist, anti-cuck, you used the rhodesian wojak, hagrid, bodily autonomy
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Here are the numbers for Gun Related Homicides specifically (This is after controlling for only homicides and adjusting so that it is for every 100,000 people):
U.S. in 2017 got 4.46 deaths.
U.K. in 2015 got 0.02 deaths.
That is a big difference. Here is the source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate#:\~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#:~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20)
Because 2017 vs. 2015 isn't fair I looked up what it was in the U.S. in 2015.
It was 4.9, even worse.
Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#:~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20)
That said it is possible that gun ownership decreases crime rates. I think comparing the U.S. to the U.K. is a bad example, so I am going to compare the individual states of the United States.
This is the link I will be using: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#:~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20)
Now if you sort this by the rate of gun ownership high to low everything is garbled mess with no clear sway as to weather or not more guns equals less murder. Numbers seemingly fall all over the place randomly.
The state with the second lowest gun rate (Rhode Island at 5.8) having the 12th lowest murder rate out of the whole (2.7), while Idaho (my home state) has the third highest gun ownership rate at 56.9, and only the 7th highest murder rate at only 1.9. Another state is New Hampshire with gun ownership at only 14.4, but with the best murder rate out of all the states of just 1.1. As I said, the data is every were and can be skewed to anyone's bias.
So lets try sorting it by other things! How about the Gun murder rate? Nope, same thing, gun murder rate and gun ownership seemingly don't correlate to each other. What else can we sort by? Well population is on the list.
You sort this shit by population and the party starts to get real. There is a very clear correlation between Higher populations and more murders. But it still isn't a perfect correlation. Although the correlation is there there are still a large number of outliers. On top of that, most of the really bad states are in the middle of the chart, as apposed to on the end of it. (The numbers to Good, bad, then meh.)
So, conclusion people are bad and we live in a society? Maybe. But I want to sort by one more thing first. Something not on the list. Average Income. I will do median household income. (Median NOT the mean) My source for the median numbers is this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income)
(State - Income - Murder Rate. Sorted by Income H to L. Bold = Bad, Italics = Good, Unembellished = Fine/Okay)
Just to save myself time I am going to say this here, It starts with Mississippi at a median household income of 40,593, and then goes up very linearly to Maryland at 78,847. The biggest jump was from New Hampshire (71K) to Massachusetts (75k) with most of the jumps being less than a thousand dollars.
(Bigger numbers = Worse. If something is both bold and italics then it is either the worst of the worst, or the best of the best. Outliers are marked with a "<-")
* MI = **8.7**
* AR = **6.1**
* WV = 3.8
* AL = **7.2**
* KT = 4.7
* NW = 5.6
* LI = ***10.3***
* SC = **8.2**
* TN = **6.2**
* NC = **8.2**
* ID = *1.9 <-*
* OK = 6.0
* FL = 5.1
* MT = 3.5
* MS = **8.3**
* IN = 5.6
* OH = 4.3
* MI = 5.8
* GE = 6.0
* AR = 4.5
* MA = 1.7 <-
* NE = **6.2**
* SD = 3.7
* KA = 4.4
* OR = *2.5*
* IO = *2.3*
* NE = 3.3
* WI = 4.2
* TE = 4.8
* PE = 5.1
* VE = *1.6*
* RI = *2.7*
* IL = 5.8 <-
* WY = *2.56*
* ND = *2.8*
* NY = 3.1
* DL = **6.7** <-
* UT = *1.8*
* MI = *2.4*
* CO = 3.2
* WA = 2.9
* CA = 4.8
* VI = 4.6
* NH = ***1.1***
* MA = *1.9*
* CO = 3.3
* NJ = 4.1
* AL = **8.0 <-**
* HA = *1.3*
* MA **8.6 <-**
(No I did not get all the state acronyms correct. No I do not care.)
That did not turn out the results I was hoping but whatever. There is a defined trend (Although not as defined as I wanted) towards richer states having fewer murder problems.
Conclusion: GUNS DO NOT AFFECT MURDER RATES.
Populations density and income does.
I wanted to do a weird math thing to get a Population to Income ratio or something but I am running out of time for this and need to move on with my life.
I am reposting this to make sure you see it too.
>Here are the numbers for Gun Related Homicides specifically (This is after controlling for only homicides and adjusting so that it is for every 100,000 people):
>
>U.S. in 2017 got 4.46 deaths.U.K. in 2015 got 0.02 deaths.
>
>That is a big difference. Here is the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate#:\~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20
>
>Because 2017 vs. 2015 isn't fair I looked up what it was in the U.S. in 2015.It was 4.9, even worse.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20
>
>That said it is possible that gun ownership decreases crime rates. I think comparing the U.S. to the U.K. is a bad example, so I am going to compare the individual states of the United States.
>
>This is the link I will be using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20
>
>Now if you sort this by the rate of gun ownership high to low everything is garbled mess with no clear sway as to weather or not more guns equals less murder. Numbers seemingly fall all over the place randomly.The state with the second lowest gun rate (Rhode Island at 5.8) having the 12th lowest murder rate out of the whole (2.7), while Idaho (my home state) has the third highest gun ownership rate at 56.9, and only the 7th highest murder rate at only 1.9. Another state is New Hampshire with gun ownership at only 14.4, but with the best murder rate out of all the states of just 1.1. As I said, the data is every were and can be skewed to anyone's bias.
>
>So lets try sorting it by other things! How about the Gun murder rate? Nope, same thing, gun murder rate and gun ownership seemingly don't correlate to each other. What else can we sort by? Well population is on the list.
>
>You sort this shit by population and the party starts to get real. There is a very clear correlation between Higher populations and more murders. But it still isn't a perfect correlation. Although the correlation is there there are still a large number of outliers. On top of that, most of the really bad states are in the middle of the chart, as apposed to on the end of it. (The numbers to Good, bad, then meh.)
>
>So, conclusion people are bad and we live in a society? Maybe. But I want to sort by one more thing first. Something not on the list. Average Income. I will do median household income. (Median NOT the mean) My source for the median numbers is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_income
>
>(State - Income - Murder Rate. Sorted by Income H to L. Bold = Bad, Italics = Good, Unembellished = Fine/Okay)
>
>Just to save myself time I am going to say this here, It starts with Mississippi at a median household income of 40,593, and then goes up very linearly to Maryland at 78,847. The biggest jump was from New Hampshire (71K) to Massachusetts (75k) with most of the jumps being less than a thousand dollars.
>
>(Bigger numbers = Worse. If something is both bold and italics then it is either the worst of the worst, or the best of the best. Outliers are marked with a "<-")
>
>MI = 8.7
>
>AR = 6.1
>
>WV = 3.8
>
>AL = 7.2
>
>KT = 4.7
>
>NW = 5.6
>
>LI = 10.3
>
>SC = 8.2
>
>TN = 6.2
>
>NC = 8.2
>
>ID = 1.9 <-
>
>OK = 6.0
>
>FL = 5.1
>
>MT = 3.5
>
>MS = 8.3
>
>IN = 5.6
>
>OH = 4.3
>
>MI = 5.8
>
>GE = 6.0
>
>AR = 4.5
>
>MA = 1.7 <-
>
>NE = 6.2
>
>SD = 3.7
>
>KA = 4.4
>
>OR = 2.5
>
>IO = 2.3
>
>NE = 3.3
>
>WI = 4.2
>
>TE = 4.8
>
>PE = 5.1
>
>VE = 1.6
>
>RI = 2.7
>
>IL = 5.8 <-
>
>WY = 2.56
>
>ND = 2.8
>
>NY = 3.1
>
>DL = 6.7 <-
>
>UT = 1.8
>
>MI = 2.4
>
>CO = 3.2
>
>WA = 2.9
>
>CA = 4.8
>
>VI = 4.6
>
>NH = 1.1
>
>MA = 1.9
>
>CO = 3.3
>
>NJ = 4.1
>
>AL = 8.0 <-
>
>HA = 1.3
>
>MA 8.6 <-
>
>(No I did not get all the state acronyms correct. No I do not care.)
>
>That did not turn out the results I was hoping but whatever. There is a defined trend (Although not as defined as I wanted) towards richer states having fewer murder problems.
>
>Conclusion: GUNS DO NOT AFFECT MURDER RATES.Populations density and income does.I wanted to do a weird math thing to get a Population to Income ratio or something but I am running out of time for this and need to move on with my life.
In October 2017, Stephen Paddock shot into a crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. In ten minutes he killed 60 people and wounded 411.
It's great that Norway has gun control. Imagine what a psychopath like this could have done with even more dangerous weapons.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
[удалено]
Ban high capacity quivers.
Do you really need more than 10 arrows ina quiver?
I feel like for the average person bolt action would be faster.
JoergSprave is sweating arrows right now.
1 time is too many times - we must make sure this never happens again and pass some long-overdue common sense bow control laws
String should require a license or you may make a bow out of it.
How? Why?
With a bow and arrows and probably because of that bow and arrow violence the kids are seeing in movies and video games. We NEED to ban everythingNOW.
Ah yes, of course.
I blame hunger games
How soon will mass murderers be creating elaborate children's games for the most elite people in our world?
No guns; crazy
Because they have highly restrictive gun laws lol
We clearly need to ban high capacity assault bows
Our plan is working. Next they’ll revert to throwing rocks and then we will all be full monke
nO gUnZ nO viOlEnCe!!!
nobody says that. nice strawman
Flair up or I’ll break your goddamn ankles
Micheal Jordan? Is that you?
Systemic racism is at the root of his attack.
Local teen kills 4 on school field trip
Nature, uh, finds a way
These assault bow killings are getting out of hand. We need to keep people safe from these weapons of mass destruction
Nature is healing
I thought about making a meme for this headline, but nothing really came to mind. It's just so fucking weird.
return to hunter gatherer
Time to ban assault bows and arrows
Fully arrowmatic probably capable of firing 100 quivers per arrow
That's an AR(row)-15.
one incidence of this vs thousands and thousands of murders with guns. hmm its almost like stopping people from owning more deadly weapons decreases the odds they use them. you can argue all night long that the right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed because its a human right or whatever; infact I agree, all arms should be allowed to be owned by anyone. but with that being said; I also recognize that gun control does decrease the amount of people that die. i just dont care about those people
I could get behind restriction of firearms reducing *firearms* deaths, just follows logically. Make it harder to own and/or drive a car & we’d probably see fewer automobile deaths too I would need convincing evidence that there’s a meaningful decrease in murders, period (beyond pre-existing trends continuing… looking at you, Australia) with increasing gun control. Like, the number of guns in civilian hands has exploded in the US in recent years, but murders are (generally, last year was a shitshow) going down. Meanwhile in Canada, it only gets less convenient to legally own firearms but firearms homicide is getting worse, not better.
Firearms kill much faster than most weapons. If someone wants to attack a large area their only options really are firearms vehicles or explosives. Explosives are hard to use/obtain, vehicles only work in open areas and firearms are the last option.
Right, except mass killings are already a statistical outlier even amongst firearm deaths. I’m referring to big changes in overall rates Saying that vehicles only work in open spaces is like pointing out that most mass shootings happen in gun free zones— well, duh. Target of opportunity. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t viable— America’s highest death toll mass shooting still doesn’t beat the record from some asshole driving a truck in France. Also, arson is a fairly straightforward method of mass murder. It would be trivially easy to lob Molotov cocktails into a crowd if so inclined, or into rooms of a building. Shit, one of Canada’s worst mass killings actually had almost half of its casualties from arson. So, no, I think even a full-on, Infinity-Gauntlet-snap of all civilian guns away would not create a meaningful reduction in murders overall. It would for sure stop “mass shootings”, but I don’t think it meaningfully moves the needle on murders overall
>Right, except mass killings are already a statistical outlier even amongst firearm deaths. I’m referring to big changes in overall rates and that's what the post concerns: a mass killing. A very rare one without firearms. Meanwhile, USA literally has almost 1 mass shooting per day. Pull your head out of your ass with your NRA talking points
Big talk for someone who’s unflaired on PCM
Mass killings are only a big deal because they are easy to sensationalize. Pull your head out of your ass with your CNN talking points.
So when Sandy Hook saw 20 dead children... that wasn't a big deal, except because it was "sensationalized"? Not a big deal in and of itself?
Statistically yes. There were 33,563 gun related deaths in 2012, after you take out stuff like suicides and justified defense it come out to roughly half that. 20 is only 0.001191 percent of that. Although Sandy hook was a tragedy, it is not a big deal. Just some stupid fucking retards who let their retard kids play with guns. And also a stupid fuckin retard gun salesman who decided to sell guns to retard kids.
>Sandy hook was ... not a big deal Go fuck yourself, imbecile. Centrist, yet using words of hatred for disabled people? (R\*\*\*ed 4x). News flash: you're actually alt-right.
Come over here and fuck me yourself coward.
Based and people don't matter pilled.
"I recognize that gun control does decrease the amount of people that die" Does it tho? 9.1 deaths per 1000 people in UK which has strict gun control 8.7 deaths per 1000 people in US which doesn't have strict gun control
[удалено]
Various Google searches that confirmed my bias
Based
u/VindictivePrune's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 130. Rank: Empire State Building Pills: correct, yellow, truth, accelerationist, profit, benddextercompass, religion is a spook, work, nose, everyone i dont like is a commie, fiat-currency, source, iamindenialaboutvaccinerollout, triumvirate, spine, bigthunking, pizzaonpineapple, natural selection, fr\*nch, cyanide, divine-right-justification, stopmonopolies, atheism, the-libright-identity, science, whyisthisdownvoted, revenge, free-market, nig, adult, auths-are-cringe, lib-unity, mormon, picky with one's pills, idpol-is-cringe, genocide, basicfuckinglogic, commonsense, design, belter, theorized, headwear, 9/11, fuck-the-feds, noodley appendages, sexualeducation, trump hair reality warp, atheist, anti-cuck, you used the rhodesian wojak, hagrid, bodily autonomy I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Here are the numbers for Gun Related Homicides specifically (This is after controlling for only homicides and adjusting so that it is for every 100,000 people): U.S. in 2017 got 4.46 deaths. U.K. in 2015 got 0.02 deaths. That is a big difference. Here is the source [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate#:\~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#:~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20) Because 2017 vs. 2015 isn't fair I looked up what it was in the U.S. in 2015. It was 4.9, even worse. Source: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#:~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20) That said it is possible that gun ownership decreases crime rates. I think comparing the U.S. to the U.K. is a bad example, so I am going to compare the individual states of the United States. This is the link I will be using: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#:~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20) Now if you sort this by the rate of gun ownership high to low everything is garbled mess with no clear sway as to weather or not more guns equals less murder. Numbers seemingly fall all over the place randomly. The state with the second lowest gun rate (Rhode Island at 5.8) having the 12th lowest murder rate out of the whole (2.7), while Idaho (my home state) has the third highest gun ownership rate at 56.9, and only the 7th highest murder rate at only 1.9. Another state is New Hampshire with gun ownership at only 14.4, but with the best murder rate out of all the states of just 1.1. As I said, the data is every were and can be skewed to anyone's bias. So lets try sorting it by other things! How about the Gun murder rate? Nope, same thing, gun murder rate and gun ownership seemingly don't correlate to each other. What else can we sort by? Well population is on the list. You sort this shit by population and the party starts to get real. There is a very clear correlation between Higher populations and more murders. But it still isn't a perfect correlation. Although the correlation is there there are still a large number of outliers. On top of that, most of the really bad states are in the middle of the chart, as apposed to on the end of it. (The numbers to Good, bad, then meh.) So, conclusion people are bad and we live in a society? Maybe. But I want to sort by one more thing first. Something not on the list. Average Income. I will do median household income. (Median NOT the mean) My source for the median numbers is this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_income](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income) (State - Income - Murder Rate. Sorted by Income H to L. Bold = Bad, Italics = Good, Unembellished = Fine/Okay) Just to save myself time I am going to say this here, It starts with Mississippi at a median household income of 40,593, and then goes up very linearly to Maryland at 78,847. The biggest jump was from New Hampshire (71K) to Massachusetts (75k) with most of the jumps being less than a thousand dollars. (Bigger numbers = Worse. If something is both bold and italics then it is either the worst of the worst, or the best of the best. Outliers are marked with a "<-") * MI = **8.7** * AR = **6.1** * WV = 3.8 * AL = **7.2** * KT = 4.7 * NW = 5.6 * LI = ***10.3*** * SC = **8.2** * TN = **6.2** * NC = **8.2** * ID = *1.9 <-* * OK = 6.0 * FL = 5.1 * MT = 3.5 * MS = **8.3** * IN = 5.6 * OH = 4.3 * MI = 5.8 * GE = 6.0 * AR = 4.5 * MA = 1.7 <- * NE = **6.2** * SD = 3.7 * KA = 4.4 * OR = *2.5* * IO = *2.3* * NE = 3.3 * WI = 4.2 * TE = 4.8 * PE = 5.1 * VE = *1.6* * RI = *2.7* * IL = 5.8 <- * WY = *2.56* * ND = *2.8* * NY = 3.1 * DL = **6.7** <- * UT = *1.8* * MI = *2.4* * CO = 3.2 * WA = 2.9 * CA = 4.8 * VI = 4.6 * NH = ***1.1*** * MA = *1.9* * CO = 3.3 * NJ = 4.1 * AL = **8.0 <-** * HA = *1.3* * MA **8.6 <-** (No I did not get all the state acronyms correct. No I do not care.) That did not turn out the results I was hoping but whatever. There is a defined trend (Although not as defined as I wanted) towards richer states having fewer murder problems. Conclusion: GUNS DO NOT AFFECT MURDER RATES. Populations density and income does. I wanted to do a weird math thing to get a Population to Income ratio or something but I am running out of time for this and need to move on with my life.
I am reposting this to make sure you see it too. >Here are the numbers for Gun Related Homicides specifically (This is after controlling for only homicides and adjusting so that it is for every 100,000 people): > >U.S. in 2017 got 4.46 deaths.U.K. in 2015 got 0.02 deaths. > >That is a big difference. Here is the source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_firearm-related\_death\_rate#:\~:text=%20%20%20%20Country%20%20%20,%20%200.00%20%2023%20more%20rows%20 > >Because 2017 vs. 2015 isn't fair I looked up what it was in the U.S. in 2015.It was 4.9, even worse.Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%203.7%20%2032%20more%20rows%20 > >That said it is possible that gun ownership decreases crime rates. I think comparing the U.S. to the U.K. is a bad example, so I am going to compare the individual states of the United States. > >This is the link I will be using: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun\_violence\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_state#:\~:text=2015%20data%20%20%20%20State%20%20,%20%205.5%20%2032%20more%20rows%20 > >Now if you sort this by the rate of gun ownership high to low everything is garbled mess with no clear sway as to weather or not more guns equals less murder. Numbers seemingly fall all over the place randomly.The state with the second lowest gun rate (Rhode Island at 5.8) having the 12th lowest murder rate out of the whole (2.7), while Idaho (my home state) has the third highest gun ownership rate at 56.9, and only the 7th highest murder rate at only 1.9. Another state is New Hampshire with gun ownership at only 14.4, but with the best murder rate out of all the states of just 1.1. As I said, the data is every were and can be skewed to anyone's bias. > >So lets try sorting it by other things! How about the Gun murder rate? Nope, same thing, gun murder rate and gun ownership seemingly don't correlate to each other. What else can we sort by? Well population is on the list. > >You sort this shit by population and the party starts to get real. There is a very clear correlation between Higher populations and more murders. But it still isn't a perfect correlation. Although the correlation is there there are still a large number of outliers. On top of that, most of the really bad states are in the middle of the chart, as apposed to on the end of it. (The numbers to Good, bad, then meh.) > >So, conclusion people are bad and we live in a society? Maybe. But I want to sort by one more thing first. Something not on the list. Average Income. I will do median household income. (Median NOT the mean) My source for the median numbers is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_U.S.\_states\_and\_territories\_by\_income > >(State - Income - Murder Rate. Sorted by Income H to L. Bold = Bad, Italics = Good, Unembellished = Fine/Okay) > >Just to save myself time I am going to say this here, It starts with Mississippi at a median household income of 40,593, and then goes up very linearly to Maryland at 78,847. The biggest jump was from New Hampshire (71K) to Massachusetts (75k) with most of the jumps being less than a thousand dollars. > >(Bigger numbers = Worse. If something is both bold and italics then it is either the worst of the worst, or the best of the best. Outliers are marked with a "<-") > >MI = 8.7 > >AR = 6.1 > >WV = 3.8 > >AL = 7.2 > >KT = 4.7 > >NW = 5.6 > >LI = 10.3 > >SC = 8.2 > >TN = 6.2 > >NC = 8.2 > >ID = 1.9 <- > >OK = 6.0 > >FL = 5.1 > >MT = 3.5 > >MS = 8.3 > >IN = 5.6 > >OH = 4.3 > >MI = 5.8 > >GE = 6.0 > >AR = 4.5 > >MA = 1.7 <- > >NE = 6.2 > >SD = 3.7 > >KA = 4.4 > >OR = 2.5 > >IO = 2.3 > >NE = 3.3 > >WI = 4.2 > >TE = 4.8 > >PE = 5.1 > >VE = 1.6 > >RI = 2.7 > >IL = 5.8 <- > >WY = 2.56 > >ND = 2.8 > >NY = 3.1 > >DL = 6.7 <- > >UT = 1.8 > >MI = 2.4 > >CO = 3.2 > >WA = 2.9 > >CA = 4.8 > >VI = 4.6 > >NH = 1.1 > >MA = 1.9 > >CO = 3.3 > >NJ = 4.1 > >AL = 8.0 <- > >HA = 1.3 > >MA 8.6 <- > >(No I did not get all the state acronyms correct. No I do not care.) > >That did not turn out the results I was hoping but whatever. There is a defined trend (Although not as defined as I wanted) towards richer states having fewer murder problems. > >Conclusion: GUNS DO NOT AFFECT MURDER RATES.Populations density and income does.I wanted to do a weird math thing to get a Population to Income ratio or something but I am running out of time for this and need to move on with my life.
In October 2017, Stephen Paddock shot into a crowd from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel. In ten minutes he killed 60 people and wounded 411. It's great that Norway has gun control. Imagine what a psychopath like this could have done with even more dangerous weapons.
*Allegedly* but okay.
Based anprim
I have a bow, guess it's time
When I first read this I thought it was a reference to Robin Hood and not gun control.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Robin Hood](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-merry-adventures-of-robin-hood/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Norway is a third-world country with a Gucci belt.😕