General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

68. Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia,

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 08:10 PM

Apr 2013

which is based on their sheer size, rather then their developedness.

AUSTRALIA
7 June 1971
AUSTRIA
29 September 1961
BELGIUM
13 September 1961
CANADA
10 April 1961
CHILE
7 May 2010
CZECH REPUBLIC
21 December 1995
DENMARK
30 May 1961
ESTONIA
9 December 2010
FINLAND
28 January 1969
FRANCE
7 August 1961
GERMANY
27 September 1961
GREECE
27 September 1961
HUNGARY
7 May 1996
ICELAND
5 June 1961
IRELAND
17 August 1961
ISRAEL
7 September 2010
ITALY
29 March 1962
JAPAN
28 April 1964
KOREA
12 December 1996
LUXEMBOURG
7 December 1961
MEXICO
18 May 1994
NETHERLANDS
13 November 1961
NEW ZEALAND
29 May 1973
NORWAY
4 July 1961
POLAND
22 November 1996
PORTUGAL
4 August 1961
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
14 December 2000
SLOVENIA
21 July 2010
SPAIN
3 August 1961
SWEDEN
28 September 1961
SWITZERLAND
28 September 1961
TURKEY
2 August 1961
UNITED KINGDOM
2 May 1961
UNITED STATES

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate [View all] Recursion Apr 2013 OP

It most certainly adds to the death rate though... Bandit Apr 2013 #1

The death rate, yes, because it makes suicide much easier Recursion Apr 2013 #3

There have been more Americans killed by gun violence in the last decade than in every Bandit Apr 2013 #6

And twice as many were killed the decade before that Recursion Apr 2013 #9

I imagine it allows the data more context LanternWaste Apr 2013 #13

Fair enough. Like I said, we're more violent than the regression would suggest we "should" be Recursion Apr 2013 #15

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2013 #4

I have used guns as directed Jenoch Apr 2013 #8

So because you personally have not destroyed any humans, none could possibly have been destroyed? Bandit Apr 2013 #11

Guns were invented to kill. Jenoch Apr 2013 #12

Guns were *invented* to knock down walls and scare horses Recursion Apr 2013 #14

I suppose it depends on the definition of a 'gun'. Jenoch Apr 2013 #16

Neither have I. nt Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #24

Have you ever sold one, had one stolen, will you ever sell one, do you have kids? Hoyt Apr 2013 #35

The only gun I have sold was to my Jenoch Apr 2013 #49

There are a lot of Zimmermans, Loughners, NRA President's son, etc., too. Hoyt Apr 2013 #87

You are all over the place with this post. Jenoch Apr 2013 #108

If your favourite writer posted it, you still wouldn't accept it. Hoyt Apr 2013 #109

Accept what? Jenoch Apr 2013 #111

Perfect example of statistical misuse Progressive dog Apr 2013 #2

What are you talking about? The data are right there Recursion Apr 2013 #5

Holy crap-his interpretation of the data is a CONCLUSION Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7

His CONCLUSION is "guns don't make us more or less safe" Recursion Apr 2013 #10

Oh I get, you just made up your conclusion Progressive dog Apr 2013 #17

Both of those are true, though I only posted the data for the second half Recursion Apr 2013 #19

When data contradicts "common sense", what you thought was "common sense" was wrong Taitertots Apr 2013 #25

You are joking, right Progressive dog Apr 2013 #36

How convenient... Only analysis and data that you agree with is "Real evidence". Taitertots Apr 2013 #64

Yeah, kind of like climate change Progressive dog Apr 2013 #86

We live in the most peaceful era in human history, including before guns existed Taitertots Apr 2013 #94

Don't continue to make stuff up Progressive dog Apr 2013 #98

Hilarious. Just claim that anything that disagrees with your ideology is just made up Taitertots Apr 2013 #103

And so if we have more guns we have less gun crime Progressive dog Apr 2013 #119

All the world is now an NRAtalkingPoint (TM). If you don't agree with the data. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #91

Almost cute Progressive dog Apr 2013 #118

Congratulations, you're the most perfect example of confirmation bias I've seen. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #114

For more stats & graphs Vol.18 No.1 Skeptic magazine www.skeptic.com olddots Apr 2013 #18

If there was NO guns, the murder rate in the USA would be lower. No doubt. Guns..... Logical Apr 2013 #20

Well, that's not what those data suggest Recursion Apr 2013 #21

So you really think if there was no guns just as many murders would be carried out with knifes, etc? Logical Apr 2013 #27

Again, that's what those data show. Gun deaths would go way, way down, but not homicides. Recursion Apr 2013 #29

We live in the most peaceful era in all of human history Taitertots Apr 2013 #33

Homicide in North America since 1700 Recursion Apr 2013 #38

Oh lordy! Is today gun propaganda day? DanTex Apr 2013 #22

No, it doesn't. Recursion Apr 2013 #23

Yes, it does. Do you ever wonder why the peer reviewed research comes to the opposite conclusion DanTex Apr 2013 #26

Look at the ****ing data points. This isn't a difficult question Recursion Apr 2013 #28

You're an engineer? Really? DanTex Apr 2013 #43

No, we don't Recursion Apr 2013 #53

Umm, yes, we do. DanTex Apr 2013 #58

I'm doing the G-8 and the G-20 right now (I've done them before, too) I'll post in a minute Recursion Apr 2013 #60

Brazil ranks #85 in the human development index. DanTex Apr 2013 #66

Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia, DanTex Apr 2013 #68

Here's G-8 (positive correlation) and G-20 (negative correlation) Recursion Apr 2013 #71

Fot the top 30 in human development index, I was able to find data for 27 countries. DanTex Apr 2013 #81

So we do worse than largely homogeneous social Democracies Recursion Apr 2013 #83

So there's a statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates DanTex Apr 2013 #84

Even you didn't find a significant correlation Recursion Apr 2013 #85

Umm, yes I did. Unless my stats software is broken, or I entered the data wrong (a possibility), DanTex Apr 2013 #88

We don't know what the rate would be with significantly fewer guns today. Hoyt Apr 2013 #42

It's the same countries as Berezow, which I have seen *you* post Recursion Apr 2013 #50

HA HA HA HA HA! Nice try with this bullshit from a known conservative Uzair Apr 2013 #30

That's why he doesn't draw a conclusion Recursion Apr 2013 #32

Check out the "conservative" findings in post #69. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #99

Garbage in garbage out XRubicon Apr 2013 #31

Who cares that the "homicide by firearm" rate goes down if the "homicide by any means" rate doesn't? Recursion Apr 2013 #34

I care. XRubicon Apr 2013 #41

He says he excluded the same countries for the same reasons. I suppose he could be lying Recursion Apr 2013 #45

I count 25 pts on my plot and about 50 on yours XRubicon Apr 2013 #55

Fine, I'll run the regression for the G-20 if you want. Give me a minute. Recursion Apr 2013 #57

I did G-8 and G-20 in Post 71 Recursion Apr 2013 #72

Because there is no statistically significant effect of guns on non-gun homicide. DanTex Apr 2013 #46

Interesting data. Wish they could isolate crime rates amongst gun owners only. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #37

Even that's possibly confounded. Does owning a gun make you more likely to be killed... Recursion Apr 2013 #48

Don't know. But this method of commingling crime rates geckosfeet Apr 2013 #92

Would the Newtown massacre have happened without an assault rifle? No. El Fuego Apr 2013 #39

Why not? VA Tech had more deaths without an assault weapon Recursion Apr 2013 #40

Seriously??! You're going to split hairs between guns with clips and assault rifles? El Fuego Apr 2013 #80

Ummm... yes. That's not "splitting hairs". Cho used handguns. Ordinary handguns Recursion Apr 2013 #82

Wait ... Am I on Candid Camera? El Fuego Apr 2013 #96

The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #100

Do you think I said something funny? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #115

The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #95

Ah, the "people on the left." You're expressing aggravation with those "people on the left." El Fuego Apr 2013 #102

No "aggravation," just a little dismay. But you may not be on the left yourself, so... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #105

LOL. Oh, I get it. The guy who wrote this is a right-winger who wrote a book about DanTex Apr 2013 #44

Right, because data points care about ideology Recursion Apr 2013 #47

Right, because a person with an agenda can't tweak a regression to get the result they want. DanTex Apr 2013 #52

No, you really can't "tweak" a linear regression. It just can't be done. Recursion Apr 2013 #56

You can if you get to pick which countries you include and which you don't. DanTex Apr 2013 #61

So, yes, Hartsfield and Bezerow can both have done that. Like I said I'm running it for G-8 and G-20 Recursion Apr 2013 #63

obscuring the issue sigmasix Apr 2013 #106

FYI study written by RW "microbiologist" Progressive dog Apr 2013 #51

It's not a "study". It's a linear regression. Recursion Apr 2013 #54

And neither was the Laffer curve Progressive dog Apr 2013 #59

The Laffer curve wasn't empirical or statistical Recursion Apr 2013 #62

It's hell on the people getting shot rate, though. DirkGently Apr 2013 #65

I have a hard time believing that the "success" rate for other weapons would be as high as guns. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #67

More people are killed with bare hands in the US than rifles Recursion Apr 2013 #73

LOL, machine guns also, who cares. A handgun is a gun. I do not think as many murders would happen.. Logical Apr 2013 #75

I guess it depends on whether the G-8 or the G-20 represents us better? Recursion Apr 2013 #78

See also the National Academy of Sciences Report Viking12 Apr 2013 #69

The increase in suicides when firearms are available is, however, basically undeniable Recursion Apr 2013 #74

Yes, the linked report ackonowledges such an association Viking12 Apr 2013 #90

Gibberish. NRA: giving math a bad name since 1950. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #70

We're *entirely* an outlier, in both directions Recursion Apr 2013 #76

The negative effect of the guns is partially mitigated by our standard of living. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #112

Note #69. More NRAtalkingPoints(marcus registrada)? Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #97

It definitely increases the accidental-deaths-with-guns rate. pnwmom Apr 2013 #77

Definitely. The increase in suicides is pretty much indisputable too Recursion Apr 2013 #79

LOL, people here react on emotion, this funny math thing will not persuade them pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #89

Well, so much for the hallowed position of math/science in some "progressive" circles. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #101

Yeah right. moondust Apr 2013 #93

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #104

No. It's a data plot. Nothing here is a "study" (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #116

How did he assign a number to privately owned guns in the US? ashling Apr 2013 #107

A Harvard study disagrees. former9thward Apr 2013 #110

How does it disagree? pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #113

LOL. You guys crack me up with your pseudoscience. That's not a "Harvard study". DanTex Apr 2013 #121

Still waiting to hear a legal scholar who agrees with your "collective rights" theory. former9thward Apr 2013 #122

So are you going to try to defend your pseudoscientific study? DanTex Apr 2013 #124

I link to things in my posts. former9thward Apr 2013 #125

Is that a "yes"? So you're actually standing by that study? DanTex Apr 2013 #126

Peer reviewed? Nope. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #117

This message was self-deleted by its author Ond Apr 2013 #120

You should look at the number of households that have guns Ond Apr 2013 #123

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #127