|
|
|
|
|
|
by trasz
1473 days ago
|
|
|
>Easy to check yourself - find list of gun ownership by country Yeah, what it shows is the exact opposite to your claim. >Such a simplistic argument would then imply crimes, homicides with guns, etc., should be the same rate across states No, it would only work like that if it was the only variable. >Page 15: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses Please read the methodology. In that very same paper you’ve quoted. |
|
|
Not according to my calcs - are you using gun homicides or total homicides? Most people mistake the former and ignore the latter. Across all countries, [1] and [2] result in a correlation between avg guns per 100 people and total homicides of -0.13. This means across all countries increased guns correlates with less homicides, which is what I stated. It also gives negative for OECD countries.
What data sets did you compare and what correlation did you get? I get similar answers to the above on many different places to find data.
>No, it would only work like that if it was the only variable.
Ah, but it works like that from your claims above. That seems a bit dishonest.
> Please read the methodology.
I did. I've also read most of the 19 surveys I could find. The sentence I quoted is exactly the conclusion on the matter from the report authors.
Of the 19, there is a range from 108k (with the problem listed - the report didn't even ask about the issue) to several with tens of millions. The majority landed around a few million.
Now, if there's a topic that you're not already decided on, and 19 different reports from over a dozen research groups report on some social topic, with a few extreme outliers and a significant number clustered around the same result, using multiple methodologies for the 19 reports, what would a be a reasonable conclusion?
The one the study reaches in this report: the middle of the road is the main claim directly stated, which I quoted above.
Or do you want to tell me that there is a different conclusion to the opposite effect in the report?
Also no comment on their finding that using a gun defensively results in less injury to the defender? Does that not seem a useful thing to know?
I get the feeling you picked a side and read evidence from that slant, instead of reading what is presented to make an opinion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-ho...