The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
no - as already related to you, the article associated with the graphic goes into detail to highlight the Mexican rate, to state it's 3 times as high as the U.S. rate and to attribute that to the decade+ carnage associated with the drug wars in Mexico. You peabrain can't fathom the point already made that to include Mexico, the graph scale would have to be manipulated to the point of skewing the graphic presentation. In the graph as it stands you can see just how high the U.S. figure reaches as compared to all other referenced countries.
but again... you refuse to state why you believe including Mexico would offer a legitimate representative account of Mexican gun legislation/policy. You refuse to state why you believe including Mexico would offer a legitimate point of comparison to all other countries mentioned. You refuse... you repeatedly refuse the request/challenge. You sure want to include Mexico in the comparison you absolutely refuse to accept!!! :mrgreen:
says the guy, YOU, whose idea of "analyzing data" is to provide multiple links to wiki pages and announce "ta da"! Of course, to draw out any correlation from those multiple wiki pages one would actually have to, wait for it... bring them together... analyze them, correlate them, etc.. Something you've not done. Your big bluster routine is to do a multiple-link throwdown, puff out your chest, and state "see... can't you see... it's all there in those multiple links"!!! :mrgreen: Yup, you sure are quite the "DATA ANALYST"!
of course, this is simply another point of bluster departure for you. Although I've repeatedly asked you to state what particular non-OECD countries you feel would add to a more representative comparison (as added to those OECD countries referenced), you can't even manage to cobble together the names of the non-OECD countries you'd like to include. In your best "DATA ANALYSIS BLUSTER", you simply say... "I wants em all"!!! :mrgreen:
says the guy, YOU, who just can't... let it go! :mrgreen: Again, I'm quite content to be the outlet for you to feel you're actually contributing to this thread.
The Facts....
Mexico was eliminated from the graph,
It was the only OECD nation eliminated from the graph
It was also the OECD nation that did not fit their obviously preconceived conclusion.
The explaination was too many people in Mexico are killed with guns, on a graph that pretends to indicate the number of people killed with guns. It is hilariously inappropriate.
The graph scale was manipulated by removing Mexico.
The graph uses membership in the OECD to designate developed countries, therefore this heading is a lie: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country:
The graph is a lie.
You can make anything indicate anything if you remove all the data that disproves your thesis.
This is so obvious that your protest are actually quite amusing.
do you truly think it's a legitimate point of comparison to include a country, Mexico, that's been ravaged by drug wars over a decade+, that's had a conservative estimate of over 120,000 gun related murders in that period associated with the drug wars, that by your own admission has the majority of it's guns brought in illegally from the U.S., etc? What value, what points of comparison are you attempting to make by wanting to include Mexico?
LOL!!
The graph is of OECD countries.
Mexico is an OECD country
Mexico is the only OECD country that has more gun killings than the USA.
To eliminate them from a graph that pretends to show the USA is the worst country in the OECD for gun murders is blatant manipulation of the data.
This is all obvious.
Can we eliminate all inner city murders in the USA from the data?
They are overwhelmingly driug/gang related.
I never admitted that the majority of guns were smuggled in from the USA. There is a difference between "originated in the USA" and "smuggled in from the USA".
But, yes, many came from the USA.
And that fact is completely irrelevant.
The Facts....
Mexico was eliminated from the graph,
It was the only OECD nation eliminated from the graph
It was also the OECD nation that did not fit their obviously preconceived conclusion.
The explaination was too many people in Mexico are killed with guns, on a graph that pretends to indicate the number of people killed with guns. It is hilariously inappropriate.
The graph scale was manipulated by removing Mexico.
The graph uses membership in the OECD to designate developed countries, therefore this heading is a lie: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country:
The graph is a lie.
You can make anything indicate anything if you remove all the data that disproves your thesis.
This is so obvious that your protest are actually quite amusing.
:mrgreen: what a absolute TOOL you are! The title you're wigging out on is based on per-capita population! You have the nerve to state the graph scale is manipulated!!! Yes, you're quite the "DATA ANALYST"!!! As I said, your peabrain can't seem to fathom that to properly present all countries, to include Mexico, the graph presentation would be skewed... that's just how far out of proportion the gun related murder rate in Mexico is. So, as I said, instead of doing that, the author chose instead to highlight Mexico within his article, state it's rate, state it's the highest rate, state it's 3 times the rate of the U.S.... and attribute that rate to the Mexican drug wars!
again, all your nattering bluster in wanting to include Mexico in a comparison... a comparison you flat out reject and refuse to accept!!! That sir, that is your "OWN GOAL"!
your desperation reeks! Are you stating:
- that the number of guns in Mexico is a reflection of the Mexican gun regulations, gun laws, gun policy? Yes or No?
- that the number of guns in the U.S. is a reflection of the U.S. gun regulations, gun laws, gun policy? Yes or No?
- that the number of guns in the U.S. is a reflection of the U.S. gun regulations, gun laws, gun policy? Yes or No?
again...
Of course it is.
And it is still a lie, because they did not include Mexico.
BTW, you showed the graph in isolation..........without so much as a link
My contention is, was, and always will be that gun regulations have very little to do with homicide rates.
That a low relative level of gun control does indeed mean there will be more guns in a country like the USA, but that the number of guns in any country has little to do with homicide rates.
Two simple and very obvious points:
1. You are much more apt to be killed with a gun in Mexico than you are in the USA, despite Mexico's strict gun laws.
2. The graph as presented (without Mexico) is a blatant lie, thus discrediting the entire article.
Last edited:
I am sorry but since I do not know who you are referring to as "Flossie" and have always researched information on my own, I have no clue what you are going on about.
Since I have through this method become quite a bit more than well protected in both my home in Canada and my second home in Florida, I figure I am doing something right. It is about being alert and vigilant in Canada since, over the years I have come up against many dimwits with hunting rifles, ready to hunt my diary herd, and in Florida where looking the wrong way at someone wearing a gun, , could get one shot.
Not everyone has been that successful, so I am doing something right LOL.
do you really presume to simply equate "gun violence"... "number of shootings", to... murder/homicide rates? Even if you purposely cherry-pick those rates in isolation of all other gun violence related injury/crime, medical advances (if nothing else) speak to an influence on those death rates....... In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun ViolenceThe number of U.S. homicides has been falling for two decades, but America has become no less violent.
Crime experts who attribute the drop in killings to better policing or an aging population fail to square the image of a more tranquil nation with this statistic: The reported number of people treated for gunshot attacks from 2001 to 2011 has grown by nearly half.
"Did everybody become a lousy shot all of a sudden? No," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, a union that represents about 330,000 officers. "The potential for a victim to survive a wound is greater than it was 15 years ago."
In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.
Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centers—which specialize in treating severe injuries—the increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Our experience is we are saving many more people we didn't save even 10 years ago," said C. William Schwab, director of the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the professor of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
Now, our friend Walso accused me of ignoring this post, in which it is claimed that the USA is no less violent, and that the falling homicide rate is simply due to improved medical practices. Indeed, the illustration claims attacks by knife and gun rose immensely between 2007 and 2010.....and that the decrease in death is due solely to medical advances.
I call BULLSHYTE.
I gave him a list of stats on violent crime in general and aggravated assault in particular, but he first attacked the validity of those stats, and then claimed that they did not deal with the gun issue....
So, here it is. ALL the following statistics except for the homicide rate come from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports for the year listed, the homicide rates from the Death Penalty site. Math done by me.
2006
Aggravated Assaults: 860,853 By gun (21.9%): 188,526 By edged weapon (18.7%): 160,979
Murders: By gun 10,225 By edged weapon 1830 Murder rate: 5.7 per 100,000
2007
Aggravated Assaults: 855,856 By gun (21.4%): 183,153 By edged weapon (18.8%): 160,900
Murders: By gun 10,129 By edged weapon 1817 Murder rate: 5.6 per 100,000
2008
Aggravated Assaults: 834,885 By gun (21.4%): 178,665 By edged weapon (18.9%): 157,793
Murders: By gun 9,528 By edged weapon 1888 Murder rate: 5.4 per 100,000
2009
Aggravated Assaults: 806,843 By gun (20.9%): 168,630 By edged weapon (18.7%): 150,879
Murders: By gun 9,199 By edged weapon 1836 Murder rate: 5.0 per 100,000
2010
Aggravated Assaults: 778,901 By gun (20.6%): 160,453 By edged weapon (19.0%): 147,991
Murders: By gun 8,775 By edged weapon 1704 Murder rate: 4.8 per 100,000
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/agassaulttable.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/agassaulttable.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/agassaulttable.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/aggravated_assault.html
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/agassaulttable.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...u.s.-2010/violent-crime/aggravatedassaultmain
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...0/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10aggvtbl.xls
Note that the number of aggravated assaults, and those done by gun and knife dropped every year.
The WSJ piece is Bull****
Last edited:
FBI — Violent Crime
I understand that aggravated assault is not the only violent crime, but it should be representative...............rape, robbery etc would be charged as such.
However, to say there is no lessening of actual violent attacks causing injury, in fact to say that attacks causing injury are increasing, when every indicator shows crime levels plunging, is simply disingenuous.
Used the FBI reports to add robbery stats with guns to the mix. The only crime of violence with guns we do not have stats for now is rape.......and that does not usually involve wounding.........
So, here it is: crimes committed with guns
2006 - Aggravated Assault: 188,526 Robbery: 188,804 Murder: 10,225 Total: 387,555
2007 - Aggravated Assault: 183,153 Robbery: 190,513 Murder: 10,129 Total: 383,795
2008 - Aggravated Assault: 178,665 Robbery: 192,374 Murder: 9,528 Total: 380,567
2009 - Aggravated Assault: 168,630 Robbery: 168,768 Murder: 9,199 Total: 346,597
2010 - Aggravated Assault: 160,453 Robbery: 152,282 Murder: 8,775 Total: 321,510
Crimes with guns fell 17% between 2006 and 2010.
The murder rate fell 15.7% between 2006 and 2010.
Improved medical techniques my furry ar$e.
So, here it is: crimes committed with guns
2006 - Aggravated Assault: 188,526 Robbery: 188,804 Murder: 10,225 Total: 387,555
2007 - Aggravated Assault: 183,153 Robbery: 190,513 Murder: 10,129 Total: 383,795
2008 - Aggravated Assault: 178,665 Robbery: 192,374 Murder: 9,528 Total: 380,567
2009 - Aggravated Assault: 168,630 Robbery: 168,768 Murder: 9,199 Total: 346,597
2010 - Aggravated Assault: 160,453 Robbery: 152,282 Murder: 8,775 Total: 321,510
Crimes with guns fell 17% between 2006 and 2010.
The murder rate fell 15.7% between 2006 and 2010.
Improved medical techniques my furry ar$e.
Ay-yup. That's the death shot. Pun intended.
Seriously? "I know you are, but what am I?" is the best you got?
Grade 3 taunts. Wow. And I bet you think yourself an adult and an intelligent human being.
Not true. Colpy has repeatedly shown flexibility and interest in finding a set of restrictions that will take some of the inherent danger out of allowing human beings to be armed. The anti-gunners, on the other hand, show no flexibility at all. They want all firearms eliminated, except for those borne by agents of the state, who we all know are uniformly and invariably kind, cautious, charitable, and professional.
huh! If you accept the accuracy of that "MoonieTimes" article you linked to, it includes an update statement that the group, "Everytown for Gun Safety", issued:
“A previous version of this report incorrectly stated that we identified 1,106 ads posted by unlicensed Vermont sellers offering firearms for sale. We inadvertently included 48 ads posted by licensed dealers in Vermont in this total. This version of the report reflects data based on the updated total of 1,058 gun ads posted by unlicensed sellers,” the group said in a statement.
so... they included 48 ads they shouldn't have... that makes them ~4% Liars, hey Colpy! :mrgreen:
just pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement given your posts... you're simply in gutter-snipe mode... so, ya... you can't, you ain't getting over it! Carry on...
Actually, it makes them 4% absolute liars and 100% misleading propagandists because as a private citizen you do not need a license to advertise or sell a firearm to another private citizen. While they pretend and insinuate there is something wrong with the ads, there is not, legally at least.
that's right... something about a decade+ ongoing drug-cartel war - go figure!
no - again, the article fully qualifies why Mexico wasn't on the graph... I keep repeating this to you; you keep ignoring it. Again, as I interpret, it wasn't included simply for presentation sake. With a rate 3 times higher than the highest other country, the U.S., including the outlier Mexico would skew the look of the graph. You need to get over your blustering conspiracy theme here. You keep barking about no link being provided... you're right, I provided a link for the other WSJ article, but not the one you keep whining about... of course, you could throw a simple google image search out on the graphic and you would find the article immediately! But that would simply get in the way of your barking routine!
So, I ask again....can we eliminate the United States because there is extensive gun violence in the inner cities that is drug/gang related?
If you wish to produce a graph that is not misleading, you have to use the same set of rules for everybody. You can not eliminate the "inconvenient truths" simply because you don't like them.
The inconvenient truth is Mexico, with very strict gun control laws, is several times more violent than the United States.
There is no excuse to eliminate them from a graph that includes all other OECD nations.
Or, if you do exclude them because of extensive drug/gang violence, you have to exclude every nation with extensive drug/gang violence......which would include the USA.
Take your pick.
notwithstanding your own propaganda, if you bothered to check, you'd realize the actual point the group was making:
- highlighting the online marketplace, with all those ads from unlicensed 'citizens', was a way for the group to reinforce the online outlet has become the go-to alternative to avoid background checks. I trust you're aware, licensed sales, by law, require a background check... no background check is required in relation to sales associated with those online ads highlighted. Surely you can't be against background checks... surely! I mean, after all, one of your fanboys just stated "Colpy has repeatedly shown flexibility and interest in finding a set of restrictions that will take some of the inherent danger out of allowing human beings to be armed." :mrgreen:
Exactly correct.
Mexico was eliminated because the inconvenient truth is Mexico would screw up the graph.....which was intended to show the USA as the worst OECD nation.
That inconvenient truth obviously completely discredits the graph and the article.
This is so incredibly obvious...........