Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

To clarify, how am I incorrect?

@InfraBlue,

You stated that the use of guns in murders would have an impact on homicide rates.

"In terms of homicide rates, defenestration wouldn't be anywhere near as efficient as the use of firearms."

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You're misreading what I wrote.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

So what do you really mean by what you wrote?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It was a comparison of homicide rates between defenestration and firearms, the former being nowhere near as efficient as the latter.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Tour claim yu're telling the truth is a ie.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Wrong again. I always tell the truth. That's why you've never once been able to point out anything untrue in my posts.

Now instead of slandering me over and over again, why don't you go pick out an a2k Fantasy Olympic team?

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

It was a comparison of homicide rates between defenestration and firearms, the former being nowhere near as efficient as the latter.

The former are efficient enough that the greater efficiency of the latter doesn't make much difference, leading to the same result no matter which method is used.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

That's incorrect. The greater efficiency of the latter as compared to the former makes much, much difference, leading, in turn, to different results for the different methods of homicide.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

That's incorrect.

No it isn't. Statistics show very clearly that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

InfraBlue wrote:

The greater efficiency of the latter as compared to the former makes much, much difference, leading, in turn, to different results for the different methods of homicide.

Statistics show very clearly that that is not true. There is almost no difference at all in the results.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
That's incorrect.

No it isn't. Statistics show very clearly that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

You're confused.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The greater efficiency of the latter as compared to the former makes much, much difference, leading, in turn, to different results for the different methods of homicide.

Statistics show very clearly that that is not true. There is almost no difference at all in the results.

No they don't.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confused.

I'm naturally immune to confusion.

InfraBlue wrote:

No they don't.

That is incorrect.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between

2 Replies

@msolga,

Have any of us considered any possible ulterior motives for government taking from the law abiding citizen the right to bear firearms? Would that also take firearms from criminals that normally violate the law?

Would that assure us against the possibility for rogue governmental officials to to take advantage of the citizen's having no firearms to do evil to the citizen? Hmmmmmm. I think we should think that over a little more.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

MORE GUNS MORE GUN VIOENCE. WHAT A SURPRISE.

Quote:

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409#:~:text=Abstract%20%20%20Variable%20%20%20IRR%20%2895%25,violent%20c%20...%20%202%20more%20rows%20

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Those murder victims would be just as dead if they had been killed with a different kind of weapon.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

They were however killed with guns. That is the problem we focus on., the much higher number killed with guns.
.⁷
Feel free to focus on the far smaller numbers killed with knives if you want. We will keep focusing on the much larger problem.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

a knife has many positive uses -- we can't very well ban them.

guns, on the other hand...

1 Reply

@Region Philbis,

Guns also have many positives uses.

And neither the American people nor the US Constitution will allow you to ban them.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

They were however killed with guns.

They are no more dead than they would be if they were killed with knives.

MontereyJack wrote:

That is the problem we focus on., the much higher number killed with guns.

That a murder victim is "killed with a gun" instead of "killed with some other weapon" is not a problem.

It's just a weird obsession with irrelevant trivia.

MontereyJack wrote:

Feel free to focus on the far smaller numbers killed with knives if you want.

No thank you. I have much better things to do with my time than worry about irrelevant trivia.

MontereyJack wrote:

We will keep focusing on the much larger problem.

As I noted above, that a murder victim is "killed with a gun" instead of "killed with some other weapon" is not a problem.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You are being gratuitously stupid. If someone dies in a car wreck do you say he would be just as dead if he died from flu and forget about it or do you try to make cars safer. Hint: we have spent a century making cars safer. Another hint: it is the guns
..

3 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know