London murder rate rises higher than NY City

Defend ourselves from murderers absolutely. No one is advocating murdering murderers unless you consider lethal self defense murder.

 

The story is bogus. Two extra deaths in a large city in two months is statistically insignificant. Could be random. Rave on!

 

India approves death penalty for child rapists

Meanwhile in the UK, they conceal their identity if they're of a certain religion.

 

This article talks about something it calls an "R^2 Value". That may or may not be these R things you keep asking for. I have no idea.

Regardless, the article makes it very clear that there is very little correlation between gun availability and homicide rates:

Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide

 

I must say, the disillusionment is palpable. Should have broken it to him lightly. Like maybe first mentioning the statistically insignificant 3.5 firearm homicides per 100,000 people per year in the U.S. Oh wait, I already did that.

Carry on.

 

Congratulations. You're getting warm. What you've given us the the coefficient of determination. For the r value, try :

The R-squared statistic in linear regression analysis is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line. The problem with the analysis you've provided is that you've shifted ground. As I understand it, the article is taking firearm death rates in the U.S. and plotting these against gun homicide rates by state. The reader is encouraged to engage in a do-it-yourself statistical analysis using data from multiple sources. First of all, the focus seems to have shifted from the world to the United States. Second, the haphazard selection of data makes it difficult to make sense of it. But I've given you peer-reviewed studies showing that there are indeed relationships. Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92:1988-1993; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64. So I'd like you to explain why we should dismiss the Harvard research and go with the rough and ready analysis by blogger BJ Campbell in Medium.

 

Because the Harvard researchers are dishonestly using cherry picked data to produce a fraudulent result.

 

There was no cherry picking going on. Where honesty is concerned, I trust the peer reviewed work of the established Harvard scholars over that of your non-scholarly NRA shill any day.

 

This is the dumbest statement ever said by a leader in human history.



Nonetheless is the same mindset of London's horrible mayor.

 

You either see the big picture or live in fear.

 

Yes there was. They excluded all sorts of countries that didn't fit the artificial trendline that they fabricated.

In other words you agree that the emperor has a wonderful set of clothes.

Personally I'm not one to disregard reality just because an authority proclaims obvious falsehoods.

 

Sayonara. Enjoy your mindless monologue. We've been down this road too often, and you keep repeating yourself. I'll waste no further time with you or Storch.

 

Almost 50 times more people die from tobacco than from firearm homicides every year in the U.S. Are 3.5 deaths from firearm homicide per 100,000 people per year statistically significant?

Also, have you found any data or studies that show a causal relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide?

I found this and thought it was rather interesting in light of the discussion here:

The National Research Council review of the available research on guns and crime found that studies comparing similar geographic areas, such as urban areas to urban areas, known as “case-control studies,” showed that “violence is positively associated with firearms ownership.” But when looking at larger areas, such as countries, the National Research Council report found “contradictory evidence.” Both types of studies, said the report, failed to address factors involved in buying a gun — it’s not a random decision. And gun ownership data itself is lacking — it comes only from public opinion surveys.

Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”

Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts - FactCheck.org

 

Surely you didn't expect me to stop pointing out facts that prove my case?

 

You've fucking mentioned that you fucking want all guns that hold more than six fucking rounds to be confiscated. Is that fucking correct? Does 3.5 firearm homicides per 100,000 people per year sound fucking statistically significant enough to justify confiscating guns that hold more than six rounds?

 

What bigger picture?

We might as well ask His Holyness to put a ban on sin.

 

Storch

No it isn’t correct, I do wish the gun lobbyists actually read the posts.

Well the premise falls apart because of the incorrect information but the subject of that set of statistics has all been covered and addressed thousands of times already in this forum again I do wish that gun lobbyists would read the relevant threads before posting repeat questions.

The fact that you seem to think such deaths are insignificant is very telling of the gun lobbying stance.

At what point does a preventable death become significant? At what point does such preventable deaths become a reason to act?

If these are not preventable but inevitable deaths why is the US general homicide and gun homicide rate so much higher that other comparable countries that try and lessen ease of access to guns?

Homicides by any method per 100.000

US - 2011: 5.1

Canada : 1.6

England and Wales – 0.93

France : 1.2

Germany 0.8

Luxembourg 0.8

Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000

US 2011: 3.6

Canada : 0.51

England and Wales 0.06

France - 0.22

Germany - 0.2

Luxembourg 0.62

Switzerland 0.16

 

Yeah this has been touched on as well. It just gets ignored by the gun shills and they still bring up Switzerland to pretend it works in their favor.