Crazy eBay offers

On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:47:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 4:26:15 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:59:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/17/2021 5:35 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 4:08:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:46:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/16/2021 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't own a television. Let's
consult an expert:

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-ot...-doesnt-cover/
Not owning a television sounds like some nice virtue signaling. But
repeatedly reading and quoting the New York Post as a source? That seems
like effective negation.
So you want to take guns away from honest law abiding Americans but you don't care that along American roads the illegal gangs are using fully automatic weapons and anti-tank weapons. But don't listen to the New York Post simply because they are the only one's reporting it.

In 2019, 10,213 people in the USA were murdered by firearms.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

In 2018, 10,265 murdered by firearms. In 2017, 11,006 murdered by firearms. In 2016, 10,372 murdered by firearms. In 2015, 9,103 murdered by firearms. In 2014, 7,803 murdered by firearms.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

I could not find any numbers for how many times the honest law abiding Americans used their guns to protect themselves and family and stop criminals. The stories about that subject were fraught with discrepancies. One study/article said between 500K and 2M times per year guns saved people. So 50 to 200 times the number murdered each year. 50 to 200 times more the good guys used guns than the bad guys just seems a bit hard to believe. If it were true it seems that the news hour would have to expand to news ten hour to cover all the times people were saved. And just a couple minutes to report the number of murders each day. But it seems the news today is about 15 minutes talking about all the people murdered each day. So I just don't know what the number of honest law abiding American gun owners is.

There are about 600,000 Americans dead from Covid-19 now. Year or so after it started. That is 60 times greater than the number of people murdered with firearms in the USA each year. Don't know if that is good or bad. But the virus seems to be even better at killing than guns.

A comment on Tom's "honest law abiding" statement. In the numerous recent mass murders, the family and friends of the murderer were interviewed after the murders. In many cases the murderer was described by people who knew the murderer closely as being a good person. And the family or friends could not believe the mass murderer committed such an act. So maybe the term "honest law abiding" does not apply to as many people as we believe.


And about 40,000 people die from hospital-acquired infection.

That's a small subset of 'death by infection' and also a
small subset of 'iatric error death'.

And it's been growing. Papers are written, numbers are
published, systems change is exhorted, everyone agrees it's
preventable - physicians, administrators, staff and most
importantly insurance carriers. Yet here we are, nearly 4x
firearms homicides every year. Where's the breathless
reportage on that?

As to news coverage versus reality, yes we're a large
diverse and (historically down to today) relatively violent
country with some newsy mayhem or another every morning.

https://newsbeyonddetroit.net/2021/0...tended-victim/

Yet no one gives one good god damn about a dozen or so black
and latin gang members shooting each other every night in
Chicago with a couple to a few deaths every night. It's
often noted that the death-per-shooting rate has dropped
only because of excellent combat surgeons in area hospitals.
They get a lot of practice.

It gets worse. Chicago is, while much smaller than in my
youth, still a large city. The rates per population of St
Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore and other medium cities are
actually worse than Chicago.


p.s. Credit's due to Mr Seaton for separating firearms
homicide from suicide and negligent discharge, an often
invoked conflation.
Well, as the pro-gunners have often said, "guns don't kill people,
people kill people" and it is true.

The argument that "well, if we limited gun ownership we would limit
gun deaths" may, or may not be true, after all the largest mass
murders committed in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh - 168 deaths, 9-11 -
2,977 deaths were not committed with guns.

In the U.S. some 39% of families have one or more guns, in Norway the
figure is 32% and in Switzerland 27%. The intestinal homicide rate in
the U.S. 4.96/100,000, Norway is 0.47/100,000 and Switzerland it is
0.50/100,000.

So, the U,S. with 21% more guns than Norway and 30% more then
Switzerland commits 10.5 times as many murders then in Norway and 9.92
times the murders in Switzerland.

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'
May or may not be true? Well I suppose that the cities with absolutely the most strict gun laws just happen to be those with the largest amount of gun crimes. I suppose that is just a freak of the statistics.

Tom, in this post and in the post immediately following this one, you are confusing "correlation" and "causation". This is a very common mistake. An example to illustrate your misinterpretation. Eating and obesity. A correlation. Not a causation. Usually, frequently, eating a lot correlates with being fat. But the true cause of obesity is consuming more calories than you burn and forcing your body to store the excess calories as fat. One can eat a lot and not be fat. Eating in and of itself does not cause obesity. You can eat a lot and run a marathon or ride a century (American century, not easy metric century) every day and not be obese.

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 12:20:34 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Frank, you sure have a hard time even thinking anymore. The Netherlands have one of the lowest gun ownership rates in Europe and try to remember who were the first people overrun by Hitler?


Tom, I see you have fallen prey to that oft quoted theology of the common man resisting the tyranny of his government with a personal firearm. Maybe, maybe that was true when that thought was first expressed when writing the US Constitution back in the late 1700s. But please explain, since you are an expert, how the average citizen of the USA would resist against the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force? If by some bizarre reason the commanders of all those military branches banded together to overtake the USA. How would your personal rifles, shotguns, handguns do against a platoon of Army soldiers armed with mortars, RPGs, SAW, M-16? How would your personal guns do against Army helicopters with miniguns firing 6000 rounds per minute? And the Army has those Abrams tanks too. And the Air Force has many different attack planes. Now I am not saying the US military is going to overthrow the country. But any armed populace would be as effective against it as a California firefighter spitting on the forest fire. Use your brain to think.

The Netherlands was overrun by Germany because it had a miniscule military compared to Germany. Gun ownership by civilians was meaningless. Germany and Hitler overran everyone in Europe. Whether civilians owned guns was irrelevant to his Panzer tanks and soldiers. I don't know if Poland and France had a lot or little gun ownership. I don't even know if the civilian population of Germany had a high gun ownership rate. I doubt the German military cared when they were killing people.




Explain to us why the highest rates of suicide have nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of guns per 100,000 but the form of government they have? It really hurts you to know that people living under communism, your favorite form of government are far more likely to prefer and end to life than to live under the sort of tyranny you think is the perfect form of government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_suicide_rate
Above is suicide by country. South Korea, Japan, and Belgium all have a higher suicide rate the USA. I do not know how many of those countries have higher gun ownership than USA. But I do know none of the them are communist countries. All are very prosperous and sort of free. So not sure why they are killing themselves. You can look at the list of countries and try to figure out which governments cause suicide. Russia is near the top. They are communist. But I'm not sure there is a clear link to be found for government type and suicide. Strangely, to me anyway, the richer countries tend to commit more suicide. Maybe that makes sense because if you are poor, being poor is natural and not really depressing. Or maybe if you are at the bottom, you can only go up. So everything is a positive.

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of course™.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily
match. As for traveling long distances just to shoot someone I think
you are overreacting as most murders seem to take place in towns,
villages and cities :-) Alaska was just "easy money" for the
enragement.

As for population density. Washington D.C. has a population density of
11,158/sg. mile and a homicide rate of 23.52/100,000 population.
Boston, Mass. has a population density of 13,943/sg.mi. and a murder
rate of 6.01/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/20/2021 11:46 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/20/2021 2:53 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 12:34:14 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

Those statistics are from over a 20 year period.

Show me.

1.Â* How does a 20 year study diminish the validity of the fatality
rate where the deceased riders age is at the date of the accident?

2.Â* Where did you find the "20 year period" that you mentioned?Â* It
might be somewhere, but I couldn't find it.Â* Since you don't seem to
provide any sources or links, I think you invented the number for the
ocassion.

3.Â* Show me a study which claims that children have a higher rate of
bicycle related fatalities.Â* URL please.

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

Beginning in the mid-1980's fatality rates for young people fell below
50% of the fatalities as more and more states and localities adopted
mandatory helmet laws see
https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyclists.

.... and child bicycling plummeted as a result.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.


Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land.


My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily
match.


Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say
otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership
significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain
types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the
problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the
vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why
_not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html

One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But
a contributing cause. Population density also plays a
factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder. Washington DC has a population density
of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of
opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just
3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html


One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause.* But
a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a
factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density
of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of
opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just
3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and
robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every
violation means laws don't work, right?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:15:19 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html


One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But
a contributing cause. Population density also plays a
factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder. Washington DC has a population density
of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of
opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just
3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.
We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary and
robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey, every
violation means laws don't work, right?

Well, we're testing that hypotheses. https://apnews.com/article/oregon-de...fbdd8b93be9196 This is what happens when you allow people to vote.

Thanksgiving 2030: "Say mom, could you pass the meth." "Well honey, just as soon as your father is done serving himself." "Would you like some crack on your potatoes dear?"

-- Jay Beattie.

Am 21.04.2021 um 20:55 schrieb jbeattie:
On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 11:15:19 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich
scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high
gun ownership a contributing factor when all of the
areas with high gun ownership are also the safest
areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up
your arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership
is associated with increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing more violent crime or whether gun
prevalence is a result of the increase in violent
crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html




One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun crimes... Alaska which has the highest
rate of gun ownership in the U.S. has a gun ownership of
61.7% and a firearm murder rate of 5.3/100,000.
Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is
24.2/100,000. or another way of saying the same thing,
Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of 2.4/100,000 and
D.C. of 6.2/100,000. -- Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing
factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing
cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to
murder someone if there is no one around to murder.
Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per
square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685
people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a
population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there
is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square
mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you
murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your
7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder
rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just
3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you
would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person
to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one person in
4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for
someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder
him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole
lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate
problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people would
reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter background
checks, which the vast majority of the country and the majority
of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it harder for a punk drug
dealer to get a Glock?

Good idea. We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.
We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against burglary
and robbery, making them as weak as current gun laws. Because hey,
every violation means laws don't work, right?

Well, we're testing that hypotheses.
https://apnews.com/article/oregon-de...fbdd8b93be9196
This is what happens when you allow people to vote.

Thanksgiving 2030: "Say mom, could you pass the meth." "Well honey,
just as soon as your father is done serving himself." "Would you like
some crack on your potatoes dear?"

How common was Thanksgiving 1935: "Mum, pass that bottle of rum, will
you?" - "Sorry dad is just emptying it, have some Gin instead"?

I don't recall anything stronger than beer and wine at my "student
thanksgiving" in USA, even though it would have been legal.

Only becuse something is legal does not mean it's going to be wide-spread.