It's not guns. It's Blacks and poor people.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Hey, here's a good "Guns and Jurisdictions" anecdote for you gun guys:

The United States has the highest gun homicide rate among developed nations. But it does not have the highest TOTAL homicide rate. It's 4th. Lithuania has the highest TOTAL homicide rate.

The United States' "guns per 100 people" rate, at 88.8, is 127 times Lithuania's 0.7. The United States' gun homicide rate, at 3.2 per 100,000 people, is about 18 times Lithuania's gun homicide rate of 0.18 per 100,000 people.

But Lithuania's TOTAL homicide rate is 7.2 per 100,000 people while the United States' total homicide rate is 4.7 per 100,000 people. The rate of people killing other people in Lithuania is substantially higher than it is in the United States even though there is less than ONE gun in civilian hands in Lithuania for every 100 people. Obviously, Lithuanians know how to kill people without guns.

The sources are the Wall Street Journal table at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/ and the list of countries with "Developed economies" in the UN document at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/p ... cation.pdf.

All of this post is bullshit we are not in the top 10. (11)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

But in reality, the gun murder rate and school shootings have as much in common as the rate at which 5 years olds eat boogers and the rate at which a Mexican agricultural worker can pick tomatoes vs a Guatemalan one

Obviously, the gun murder rate and school shootings are directly related because the people that get killed in school shootings go into the gun murder rate. They are a small number. But they're part of it.

Besides that, every time a school shooting happens we see reports showing correlations between gun homicides, gun related deaths, etc., and gun ownership. And there is a problem with that because there really is a legitimate question about whether or not there is evidence that fewer guns means fewer murders, suicides, or whatever.

So we have this situation in which there is a strong correlation among States between gun ownership and gun related homicide but, at the same time, there isn't a "significant" correlation between gun prevalence and homicides over all. What that tells you is that you can generally "predict" that States will have more GUN related homicides if they have more guns, but you cannot generally predict that there will be more instances in which people kill other people in some way. It implies that we cannot count on the idea that reducing gun ownership rate will, on balance, "save lives."

Now, no doubt it changes scenarios. If there were no guns we couldn't have school shootings. But that doesn't mean people wouldn't find other ways to kill people in other in other ways in other scenarios. It doesn't mean we couldn't have school kids being massacred. In fact, as you probably know, the worst school massacre in US history did not involve guns. Different scenarios might mean different people being killed. It might mean different time frames over which people are killed. Other things. But it may not mean fewer people end up being killed.

The Black is just a reference to a factor that IS clearly associated with State to State variation in homicide rates. The main point is that gun ownership rate is not. Well...like I said...I can tease out a minor effect if I "control" for % Black and % Poverty. But it's a very small effect.

[JohnStOnge]

Hey, here's a good "Guns and Jurisdictions" anecdote for you gun guys:

The United States has the highest gun homicide rate among developed nations. But it does not have the highest TOTAL homicide rate. It's 4th. Lithuania has the highest TOTAL homicide rate.

The United States' "guns per 100 people" rate, at 88.8, is 127 times Lithuania's 0.7. The United States' gun homicide rate, at 3.2 per 100,000 people, is about 18 times Lithuania's gun homicide rate of 0.18 per 100,000 people.

But Lithuania's TOTAL homicide rate is 7.2 per 100,000 people while the United States' total homicide rate is 4.7 per 100,000 people. The rate of people killing other people in Lithuania is substantially higher than it is in the United States even though there is less than ONE gun in civilian hands in Lithuania for every 100 people. Obviously, Lithuanians know how to kill people without guns.

The sources are the Wall Street Journal table at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... hip/table/ and the list of countries with "Developed economies" in the UN document at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/p ... cation.pdf.

All of this post is bullshit we are not in the top 10. (11)

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'm guessing you're talking about that mass shootings study you found. I'm not talking about mass shootings. I'm talking about total homicides. That includes whatever the heck the Lithuanians are doing whereby most of the time they kill each other without shooting at all. They've got the highest homicide rate among the nations the UN categorizes as having developed economies but only 2.5% of their homicides involve guns.

[JohnStOnge]

Hey there's a reference to an interesting study result in this article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 80671.html

I found it googling to see if there was a suggestion that total homicide rate fell in Australia as a result of their big bun laws reform back int he 1990s. The answer, at least according to the study the article cites, is "No."

The researchers wrote: “There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997, but also a decline in total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude.

“Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.”

That refers to not being able to even say that the decline in firearms related homicides is due to the gun law. But I think it's safe to say that if they don't think they can say the firearms related homicide rate decline is due to the law they can't say that the total homicide rate decline is either.

But I'm guessing there are probably other studies.

[JohnStOnge]

Ooooo. It's a study published in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/f ... le/2530362

I know I started a thread nobody cares about pertaining to problems with the peer review journal publication process. Nevertheless, most people in the media put a lot of weight on that. And you're not going to find a more prestigious journal than JAMA.

So now after all we've heard about Australia this and Australia that I find out we have a study published in JAMA that says we can't attribute a decline in even Australian firearms related deaths to Australia's 1996 gun law reforms?