The Surprising Geography of Gun Violence

You don’t need to resort to dishonesty. I was very clear in my initial post that I was reporting HOMICIDE rates. I have reported HOMICIDE rates for both “strong” and “weak” gun law states. I have NEVER conflated homicide and total gun death numbers as you accuse me of.

Here are my numbers AGAIN and the source. Here is the initial post clearly stating HOMICIDE RATES, not gun death rates. I have bolded that claim since you seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state

Here are pics from my source showing I have used HOMICIDE RATES for both strong and weak gun law states, not total death rates for strong law states as you have dishonestly claimed.



Now, I have never said or inferred suicides do not matter to me. Obviously your emotional state is in question. You have intentionally misrepresented what I posted now. You have fallaciously claimed I do not care about suicides etc. I suggest you think a bit about your behavior in response to a simple post of mine that was 100% factual.

The ball is in your court. You can apologize for being dishonest about what I’ve posted or you can further erode the credibility of your posts and your position on firearms law/controls. Either way, I’m happy. Carry on.

 

LOL-- I clearly gave my results, in total gun deaths: which is clearly the most relevant figure. If suicides, and accidental deaths, mattered to you, then why would you omit these, for your own comparison, between states? I am not so stupid as you apparently take everyone reading this to be, as to not be able to recognize the meaning of your only counting homicides, and discounting suicides & accidental deaths. That can be interpreted no other way, than that they do not matter, at least not enough to be included in an analysis of the effect of gun laws-- in your analysis, that is.


557 said: ↑
I’m very sorry you are so emotional about the topic you are unable to distinguish between firearm deaths and homicides. You really ought to think more and react to talking heads less.

You really ought to stop thinking of yourself as competent to judge everyone else, and especially to make what sound like insulting assessments of other members' "emotional" states. Do you take yourself to be a psychiatrist? Or are you that inept at presenting an argument, that the first bump you hit, compels you to cast aspersions, at your fellow debater? That actually sounds as if it is a problem of emotional control.

So now I am, supposedly both in a "questionable" emotional state, and "dishonest," as well? The proof of these being how much, you clearly care about victims of suicide (and accident victims, too, right?), that you had cast their data aside from your giving it any consideration, in gaging the effect of gun laws(?)

So you were really only showing their effect on homicides.

But you are saying that doesn't reflect your considering this statistic as more important than the effect on suicides, & accident deaths? That would not be the appearance of things, on their face.


Are you going to say that gun laws don't effect those other things, that's why you ejected that part of the data-- to come out with a different result than me? But wait, that would mean that gun laws do effect suicides, and deaths from gun accidents. Yet you still ignored them, to focus on just homicides.

Not only that, but merely my not noticing that one small word in your post-- since you had not made a point of explaining, why you were changing the metric which I had used, of all gun deaths-- had immediately led you to charge me with being too emotional to think clearly: what else to think, of someone who actually counts all gun deaths, like they might matter?

What, in fact, is obvious here, about your personal claims of concern, as well as about your psychological evaluations of me, is that you are full of crap.

 

Wow. Just as I expected. Pure fallacy. Here again is my original post in response to your post. Simple. Straightforward. 100% factual.

It is interesting to look at homicides separate from other gun deaths because suicide is by far the most common firearm death. And no proposed firearm restriction I’ve seen can have a meaningful long term impact on suicide. My post was an attempt to get folks like you that are all spun up about things you’ve let someone else think through for you to stop and put some thought into this subject.

If one stops for a minute and thinks, they start to realize we need to help people not want to off themselves, not just try and restrict firearms. I actually care about ALL deaths, not just GUN deaths.

I can’t force anyone to be rational though as your posts here have demonstrated with paragraphs of pure fallacy and accusations of trickery when there is nothing tricky about my very simple, straightforward and factual post. I’ve retained some respect for your posts in the past. That has evaporated in this exchange. You had the chance to address the FACTS I presented. Instead your posts were fallacious and made false accusations you will not acknowledge or apologize for. Thanks for supplying posts that are so instructive of the attitudes of anti gun reactionaries. No hard feelings. I appreciate your help.

 

I'm heartbroken! That is really a tough pill to swallow...
You apparently have the self-aggrandizing impression, that your posts, had gained you, my admiration. Hence, the importance of your relating to me, this devastating news, to let me know how grievous a mistake, I have just made-- and you say that you are interested in preventing suicide?

Luckily, I am being facetious. If you had wanted to show that the increase in gun suicides were equalled by increases in other forms of suicide, where gun laws are made stricter, you certainly could have made an effort to do so. You'd made none, but offer this as part of your justifying explanation, after the fact. Yes, your intentions were quite clear.

Also I see that cheap insults from you, are something that one should expect; followed by a sickly combination of condescending complaint, of having been wronged. Oh, how will I get along, without that?

 

You will continue your fallacious posts unabated. That’s how you will get along.

Again I appreciate your help in demonstrating the bankruptcy of your position. Any position that has to use pure fallacy and dishonesty in an attempt to remain relevant is bankrupt.

Carry on…..I have no desire for admiration from anyone willing to intentionally misrepresent my posts. Have a good day.

 

What's always amazed me is that Windsor, Ontario, within visual sight across the river, has one of the lowest rates of violence and crime per capita.

 

According to the supreme court, you need to have "reasonable suspicion" that the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be "armed and presently dangerous" or otherwise it's unconstitutional. I sourced it.

A cop randomly harassing somebody is therefor not constitutional. Nowhere in your rather condescending post are you even remotely disputing this. You also give no sources you are right while you claimed it. Hence you lost the argument.

 

Strawman. No one has argued "A cop randomly harassing somebody is therefor not constitutional." That wasn't the stop and frisk policy in New York.

As for giving sources, you gave my source, Terry v Ohio. It proved my point, not yours, in spite of the many, many attempts of yours to try to recast what I claimed. You want to say that I was defending a "cop randomly harassing somebody." I was not. I was defending New York's stop and frisk program.

Remember you are the one who claimed it's unconstitutional and the one bit of "evidence" you provided made my point, not yours. That's not being condescending, however I can see how you could take it as such since you've been repeating the same incorrect things over and over and I've been pointing them out.

Do better.

 

That's unfounded nonsense, since everybody knows stop and frisk was all about stopping people who were NOT reasonable suspicious.

 

OK well I see this has about run it's course. We're left with you making a statement you couldn't prove, and when you attempted to, you made my point instead. Now you're mad bruh. I get it. Luckily you'll always have MMT.

 

You wrote:
"Stop and frisk was used in NYC for years. It wasn't stopped because of a lawsuit or constitutionality."

And you have refused to prove this. So you indeed have conceded.


My claim:
"You can't go randomly seize individuals and hope they have illegal weapons"

And indeed. I have proven EXACTLY this.
You think I made your claim, but I did not.

 

You still here? Go home, you lost, and you've been in beating a dead horse territory for a while.

 

It remains so you proved nothing.
And it's not as if you are able to deny my previous post with some argument.

 

Your previous post was just a rehash of your post before that and so on...

You're like a Seinfeld episode; no learning. But at least Seinfeld is funny.

 

Everybody is able to read back and see what I sourced and it goes hand in hand with my claim.

Your posts are just all and the same. A lot of talk, but no argument or sources, just one big bluff of trying to weasel your way out.

 

Doesn’t it embarrass you to post such misleading garbage?

 

I definitely would recommend, if anyone is interested (they aren't), to go back and read how you tricked yourself by posting a wiki link to a court case that legitimized stop and frisk when you clearly thought it made it illegal.

Next time when googling, read at least far enough (like at least a paragraph?) to understand what exactly the article is trying to say. Particularly with court cases. They can be tricky, as you've obviously discovered (or not! Ha!).

 

As usual Condor you make good intelligent arguments, and as usual those who oppose your arguments have no intelligent comeback.

 

My thoughts?

Conservatives in the south hate any idea which threaten their life style so much that they would rather give their children ivermectin, a animal drug, then life saving vaccine.

You think any of these status mean anything to them? Absolutely Not.

They would rather their children die in gun violence then LIBS tell them they are wrong. These people are destined to eradicate themselves, there is nothing you and I can do to save them.

 

Why are you purveying factually inaccurate information? Do you hate science?

Ivermectin

What is ivermectin?
Ivermectin is an anti-parasite medication used to treat parasitic diseases. It is FDA approved for use in humans to treat a variety of parasitic infections including parasitic worms, hookworm and whipworm. Ivermectin may also be used as an effective treatment for a wide range of other conditions and as a treatment of onchocerciasis, intestinal strongyloidiasis and onchocerciasis or river blindness.

The antiviral activity of Ivermectin has been shown against a wide range of RNA and DNA viruses, for example, dengue, Zika, yellow fever, and others.

Please stop the disinformation.

 

So I don't disagree with these points, suicide isn't a crime and whatnot.

But I do think you should consider a few things.

Guns are the number one method for Americans to commit suicide. Why? There's probably more than one answer but it's likely the two big ones are: they are effective and readily available. This doesn't mean if guns were to disappear suicide would, but suicide is not a snap decision. It's a gradual outcome usually based on years of depression. During those years, other methods to avoid the pain are attempted, drugs, alcohol, sex, working too much, eating too much, working out too much (which is healthy way to to do it but won't solve the problem), etc. A gun, however, presents the opportunity to get it over with quickly. Hence why it's effective. If you do it right, it should be pain free near as we can tell. And you don't have to think about it. You just put it in your mouth and pull the trigger. Drug over doses are MUCH more complicated and take time. Jumping off a building or bridge also takes time, though less, but it's still something the person committing suicide has to endure to get to the release of pain. So again, effectiveness and availability are reasons to consider suicide when counting gun violence. If you reduce availability, I would bet money you might reduce some suicides too. You might give people just enough pause to get help. Guns make it instant though. Hanging is a distant second place at about half the suicides that involve guns.

Also, suicide is violence. It's violence against one's self. I don't see why you couldn't count it if you're measuring over all violence whatever the method. Why would you ignore a problem in a country that involves people being so depressed they would take their own lives? Indeed depression can cause people to take others lives in the form of crime, and you seem OK counting that, so why not self-violence?

Finally, the notion that it's somehow intellectually dishonest is projection. While there are some people in this country who want to ban guns, most of us on this side of the argument see a problem in the data and are open to ways to help solve it. What your side sees is a power grab. Why? Becasue that's what your side does. "Don't worry, overturning Roe V Wade isn't about banning abortion, it's about returning the issue to the states..." Yeah. Those who make slippery slope arguments do so because that's how they operate. I don't see it that way. If someone can say, hey, this existing gun law would reduce deaths by 5% in the US, all we have to do is enforce it better, I'd call that a win. See the difference?

 

here is the FDA warning of using ivermactin for COVID-19

YOU ARE NOT A HOURSE , YOU ARE NOT A COW, SERIOUSLY, Y'ALL. STOP IT.

 

Yet they have been using it to treat parasitic infections in humans for years.
I guess they must have made that meme for the DC political idiots who are so easily brain washed by the media.
It would be the same DC political idiots who claimed Trump told them to inject themselves with Lysol.
Very same crowd.
Most call them Pavlovs dogs as they tend to drool over anything that gets them excited for their own political views because they don't have the education or common sense to know any better.

 

it's not media , it's FDA official tweeter feed

YOU ARE NOT A HOURSE , YOU ARE NOT A COW, SERIOUSLY, Y'ALL. STOP IT.

 

Then go run to the poster who claimed its a media feed. lol
Hurry, hurry, hurry lol
Don't forget your Lysol shot