in per capita murders. That has a whole lot more meaning than just a raw number.

Canada, where I live, comes in at 1.45 murders per 100,000 people. Many of us Canadians like to attribute that to stricter gun control here, but that's not easy to prove empirically.

I'm sure of that.

In more ways than one.

Not sure what the point of that is. Thats like saying our childhood poverty rate would go down if you took out the 4 states that had the highest rates of child povery, or child obesity, or the 4 cities with the highest overall obesity rate.

The problem is the manufacturers, union laborers and legal original purchasers of those guns?

See how that works?

Not really parallel.

Perfectly parallel.

No, not parallel.

Parallel.

You have to go to a licensed pharmacist.

Universal background checks are completely unenforceable. It's just an ego boost for people who want to feel like they've accomplished something.

Vendors at gun shows do. And nearly all vendors at gun shows are local or regional licenced dealers leaving their brick-and-morter stores for a weekend at the show.

Gun shows sell table space to vendors, including gun sellers.

that make the decision to flood the streets like in Chicago with guns. That's why the only solution is to make sure the people that live elsewhere can't get guns that they can use to flood the streets.

if you take the bullets out.

if you take the fuel out.

Yes, sadly, it is a thing. At least it takes more physical strength and proximity than shooting someone.

It's a lot easier to shoot 5 people than pistol whip 5 people.

What is it about guns that make some men go absolutely crazy?

Wish I had an answer.

Was a rough day.
The ten-year old on his front porch survived.

It rather depends on the claim that's being discussed.

As pointed out above, the highest rates of homicide (allegedly) occur in cities with low legal gun ownership. It's a point to be made that effects how you interpret the murder vs ownership rate.

It's also important to realize that this means that the homicides that really tug the US homicide rate up are concentrated. "Gun culture" is widespread, but there are areas probably not big into the NRA and conservative politics that are problems. In other words, there are two "gun cultures," one with a high and one with a lower homicide rate. (I assume we're leaving suicides out of this.)

If it's the guns, that is certainly isn't predicted, unless those cities have exceptionally high gun ownership rates, legal or illegal. I like hypotheses that not only account for the data we see that also accounts for the data we're not especially interested but especially in why we don't see certain kinds of data. I've seen many a theory that predicted all the data we had--but also made predictions that simply didn't pan out, but people couldn't be bothered to look at.

Or "Thugs", ifyouknowwhatimsayin. Or maybe both in collusion.

conclusions as quickly as you did....sarcasm sign aside.

"Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance."

Penalties for illegal (gun) posession should be enforced, but often they are not.

The gangs whose members kill disproportionately huge numbers of other people (often other criminals) are in some areas deeply protected. Read: "Gangs and Politics in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance." Likely, Chicago is not the only city where skidmark thugs can get juice with little interruption. Where they get their guns has diddly to do with it.

about the impact on society.

and open carry.


Thank God nobody was killed in Chicago with a gun until a couple of years ago.

The place has unique problems, a prominent one being an even longer history of gangs fully integrated into the culture, and protected by politicians who owe their careers to them.

I note your personal insult -- probably protected (Chicago-style?) In GD in its own right. You are caught up in a culture war; I can't help that. But I WILL continue to post where ever the controllers choose to post, even if it is in GD, 24-7

And, provide decent, safe schools, with a promise that they can eventually go to college, or into a trade apprenticeship. Give them fewer reasons to resort to gangs and crime. And, tighten up punishment and gun laws nationwide. All the gun bans in Chicago are not going to make an iota of difference, when one has an endless supply of cheap, legal fire arms available to them right next door in northeastern Indiana. This holds true for the other 3 cities on the list, as well.

A searchable electronic database of every gun and it's owner cross referenced to local, state and federal crime records.

License to own by type of firearm renewable every three years or some other suitable period.

Universal background check through a licensed FFL.

Safe storage laws to prevent theft and little kids killing each other.

Mandatory reporting of theft/loss of guns.

Mandatory training for first time buyers on use, storage, responsibilities (both legal and ethical) and safety with periodic renewals.

Permit to purchase with background check by Chief Local Law Enforcement including interviews with employers, family and any other people deemed necessary. All this after the training above.

Immediate confiscation of guns from domestic abusers including temporary restraining orders pending hearing for permanent status.

Repealing the PLCAA and placing guns back under the control of the Consumer Protection Act.

Full funding and staffing of the BATF&E or moving it to the FBI.

Rigorous standards for gun dealers including annual inventories and harsh penalties for any lost firearms from inventory.

Training for dealers and their staff on how to spot a straw buyer or suicide and investigations into sales to either.

Give me time and I'll have more but I'd start here and patch any loopholes found during implementation.

Nuke Indiana, it's the only way.

I don't know that there's an actual correlation/causation though, could just be coincidence.

It's a book by John R. Lott, Jr. He has a history of academic malfeasance that is truly wondrous.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/nras-favorite-academic-john-lott-exposed-as-a-data-fudging-sock-puppeting-fraud/

Fabricating studies, cherry-picking and manipulating data, outright lies, being his own sock-puppet, and more.

Let's say that anything he says is to be taken with a VERY large grain of salt. Approximately the size of a semi-truck, With trailer.

and Ted Nugent.

toll on innocent people.

The closest thing to debate I've seen you do on the topic, is to post pics and make nasty insinuations.

as they can have a room full of guns suitable for urban warfare, one in their pants to walk out the door, etc. You might as well ask a rabid dog not to bite you.

Dishonest gungeoneers who can't read started the rumor and gullible fools believe it.

with comprehension problems.

That means very little, when you can't even define "cabin" correctly.

the gun goofs were discussing when it's OK to play cowboy and start shooting no matter how many innocents are endangered. Some gunner posted an article about a robbery in a grocery store where the robbers locked the doors when they entered. The gun nuts went ape and said that's when you start shooting even if innocents are endangered because they planned on killing everyone . Of course, no one was shot in the incident, but gunners are not rational.

In any event, in an attempt to make a point that might save a life, I posted something like, "well when I was a robber, I locked the doors to control the situation by keeping others orolice from walking in and escalating the situation." Of course, obtuse gun cowboys missed the point and started acting like Trump, claiming I'm a former robber. It's very difficult debating folks who are steeped in gunz.

against the scenarios where you plan to pull your gun and put innocent people in danger to save your hide.

usually . . . . . . .

you'd clean house at a casino with the odds of pegging a gun fancier.

Its more of a case of you getting sensitive when someone questions your gun hate.

You just remove the data points that you don't like?

Humm ... Imagine how strong the US would be in the world if we pulled certain STATES from the calculations.

Which counties might we want to drop from that calculation?

Oh hey ... maybe we could do the US economy using only CA and NY!!

This is a very OLD game that people play with statistics ... just include, or drop, the data points you like.

Or factor in population density.

Per capita averages.

I have 2 advanced degrees in behavioral sciences.

And the motivated can easily tag a few data points as outliers to make their case.

Try this ... Do the same stats with developed nations. And drop their largest cities.

Oops.

Bottom line, a data point is not an outlier just because you don't like it.

If YOU as the OP author can't put forward a single OPINION about this data you found ...

... Why should any of us take YOUR OP seriously??

without having a firm position on the subject? If not... that seems awfully....ummm... fascist?

... I did not say you needed a firm position.

But I would expect an OP to demonstrate that they had "some" thoughts on the topic. Even if not firm.

If they actually cared to have a real discussion, I mean.

might be a bit more gracious.

You can't toss out selected data points, leave the others, and then "discuss" it.

Unless you want to examine cities of similar size. And gun laws in those.

... entering those cities, right?

I was asking about cities outside the US in the developed world.

How do we compare with countries with more controls? I think you know the answer.

Sorry, I'm not playing baby bird with you. You have the same Internet tgat I do.

Go learn.

I've run into lately... I LOVE this kind of give and take..... Peace be with you.

We do it all the time.

Consider the average American weight. It tells you little.

If you want to look at hypertension, you need to disaggregate the data. The average is pointless. Once you do this, you can start looking for what may account for the overall average by looking at subgroups. Does it vary by age? Geography? By ethnicity/race?

You look at the obesity rate and then you disaggregate it by ethnicity and find that historical diet patterns help to predict to a large extent type 2 diabetes.

You find that sedentary lifestyles encourage it. You find that there's a real discrepancy between a lot of suburbanites that are upper class and lower class.

But unless you start by saying that the average, per-capital mass of an adult American isn't the end-all of the conversation and you do remove some data points (dealing with them separately, not just dismissing them), you miss Really Important Points.

It's the same with education levels, unemployment, gun violence, arrests, obesity, in-school music programs, okra consumption, craft-beer consumption, and a million other things.

You find stats saying things like "California, were it a country, would be the Xth largest economy in the world." You find stats showing that half of gun violence, or nearly so, occurs in just the American SE. You find US military strength is racially biased--the Air Force is disproportionately white, the Army is over-stocked with Latinos and if you look at front-line forces in the Iraq War it's even more disproportionately Latino and white.

Yes, some just drop data points. But unless you disaggregate the data--"If you leave out 4 cities, then the US homicide rate is very high"--you don't get to ask what might be important questions. However, the questions might prove to have embarrassing answers, just as a lot of the obesity data did, or hypertension data did.

For example, there was a nice hypertension drug. It seemed good in clinical trials. In a follow-up study, turns out it did nothing to help patients but had a low incidence of serious side effects. It was almost pulled off the market, until somebody looked at the original clinical trial data. They took out a subpopulation, and got the follow-up results. It turns out that one subgroup in the US benefited strongly from that drug. The rest of the population, not. Unless you separated out the data, you'd never find that it was a lifesaver for that particular subgroup. Eventually they located the genetic factor that predisposed that group to salt intolerance, and this led to the FDA's revising the salt intake requirements. Low salt diets for most people have no effect; we eliminated excess salt quickly and easily. But for another group there's a genetic variant that favors salt retention.

What does it prove, other than people kill, and many people are gathered in large cities.

is the fact that the rest of the country isn't nearly as negatively impacted by guns as the statistics appear to indicate.

Most of the country is not having an epidemic of gun related deaths, and that's good news for everyone not in those cities.

So should rural residents ignore the gun violence because it does not directly affect them?

There's no problem, then.

Where did I say there was no problem?

Its Friday and I turned off the "stats" portion of my brain. While getting a glass of wine, I turned it on again.

The article also uses false equivalency. If you remove the top three cities for gun violence in the US, you need to do the same for rest, bet your ass if you did that, the US will score even higher.