On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:15:41 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/13/13 7:10 AM, Tim wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 1:38:46 AM UTC-5, jps wrote:

Researchers in the United States claim to have established a



convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,



according to a new study.







The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,



challenges the National Rifle Association s claim that increased gun



ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.







Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that



for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a



given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.







In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the



study used a proxy variable the percentage of a state s suicides



committed with a firearm that has been validated in previous



research.







The study, led by Boston University community health sciences



professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December



2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in



Newtown, Connecticut.







In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown many states are



considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths, said



Siegel in a statement.







This research is the strongest to date to document that states with



higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers



of deaths from firearm-related homicides, he said.







It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall



prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.







The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated



percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in



Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national



average of 57.7 percent.







The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent



per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an



average for all states of four per 100,000.







The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide



for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in



2010.







Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in



the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is



available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and



Prevention.



Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they "observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow guns."



http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/





That's an absurd posit on the part of Kates and Mauser. There are

decades of evidence showing that the United States, with virtually no

gun controls, has among the highest rates of murder by gun in the

western world.


For every statement, poll, or study, there's always an opposing view, Harry.. You should know that...

"Tim" wrote in message
...

On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:15:41 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 9/13/13 7:10 AM, Tim wrote:



Kates and Mauser clarify that they are not suggesting that gun
control causes nations to have higher murder rates, rather, they
"observed correlations that nations with stringent gun controls
tend to have much higher murder rates than nations that allow
guns."



http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/b...ence-with-ban/


That's an absurd posit on the part of Kates and Mauser. There are

decades of evidence showing that the United States, with virtually
no

gun controls, has among the highest rates of murder by gun in the

western world.


For every statement, poll, or study, there's always an opposing view,
Harry. You should know that...

-------------------------------


Hard statistics have value but some of these gun issue polls are
really questionable. The University of Chicago does a poll every two
years trying to get an idea of overall gun ownership numbers. They
call something like 2000 people and ask, "Do you own a firearm".

Who, in their right mind, is going to answer someone asking a question
like that based on a telephone call from an unknown "pollster", and
if they do, how reliable are their answers?

Without a national gun registry the only way to estimate the growth or
decline of gun ownership is to look at the manufacturer's production
numbers.
Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

"jps" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite
this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

--------------------------

First, there's no need for your snarky comments.

Other than telephone surveys, there's no possible way to determine if
gun ownership is going up or down because there's no national registry
of who owns what. You have to believe that if a stranger calls you
up and asks if you have a gun, that everyone will answer honestly. My
answer would be, "None of your business".

Manufacturing production numbers (yes, and even the resultant company
stock prices) represent a real indicator of guns being sold.
Agreed, many are split between current owners and new owners but
again, those numbers aren't readily available. However, add in the
record number of permit applications, again split between new
applicants and renewals, a logical conclusion is that gun ownership
is going up, despite what random, limited and likely biased surveys
say. If ownership was declining, so would both new permit and renewal
applications. That has not been the case. Where required, the
permit issuing agencies have been swamped. In MA, a new permit
application typically took 6 weeks to process years ago. They are now
taking as much as 6 months due to the backlog.

In article , says...

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:29:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com
wrote:



"jps" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:


Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,
indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new
applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,
gun related homicides nationally are declining.

Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the
supposed statistical link claimed by the study.

Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

-------------------------

Let's see. The title of your post was, "Higher gun ownership equals
higher rate of homicide".

This dimwit is simply saying that at a national level:

a. Gun manufacturing has been up for the past 5 years (indicating
strong demand).
b. Permit applications have been at record levels (both new
applications and renewals).
c. Nationally, gun related gun homicides have been declining.

I'll leave it to you academic geniuses to study and determine the
correlation.


The percentage of population owning guns is going down. Has been for
decades. If your assumptions are right, then more guns are being
purchased by those who aleady own guns, so the NRA and Fox News are
doing their jobs well.

Areas in which gun ownership is higher experience more gun related
deaths. That's the conclusion of the study.

Can you separate those thoughts long enough for them to each make
sense?

If you can run a slide rule, you can surely figure this out.

Do you have data to backup your position that gun ownership is declining?

What is a gun related death? Is it anything like a beer related death?

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:28:17 AM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:





Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,

indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new

applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,

gun related homicides nationally are declining.



Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.



Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Yet Chicago, with its tough gun laws, has a high rate. "Even supporters of the city's gun laws admit they don't address the social problems behind the shootings that continue to plague Chicago—400 so far this year. "You can try to legislate morality but it's really not something you can do," says Jason Ervin, alderman of the 28th Ward, a stretch of Chicago's west side battered by crime and disinvestment."

So guns aren't really the problem, eh?

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

You don't have the credentials to make the statements above. After all, you think that people with an academic background magically don't have an agenda when writing a report. How naïve is that?

On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:28:17 AM UTC-4, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



On Friday, September 13, 2013 8:20:09 AM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:





Some, like S&W have been at full capacity for the past 5 years,

indicating a strong demand for their products. Additionally, new

applications for permits have been at record levels. Despite this,

gun related homicides nationally are declining.



Which would seem to disprove the title of this thread, and the supposed statistical link claimed by the study.



Some dimwits aren't smart enough to realize that these two ideas are
not at odds with one another. You can have both a declining homocide
rate and a higher rate of homicide in regions with higher gun
ownership.

Yet Chicago, with its tough gun laws, has a high rate. "Even supporters of the city's gun laws admit they don't address the social problems behind the shootings that continue to plague Chicago—400 so far this year. "You can try to legislate morality but it's really not something you can do," says Jason Ervin, alderman of the 28th Ward, a stretch of Chicago's west side battered by crime and disinvestment."

So guns aren't really the problem, eh?

Some people have the academic credentials and investment into the
subject matter to make claims and some people do not.

Why don't you dimwits leave the thinking to those with brains enough
to do so.

You don't have the credentials to make the statements above. After all, you think that people with an academic background magically don't have an agenda when writing a report. How naïve is that?

It's not naive. The numbers are the numbers. You just don't want to
face facts.

Doesn't have anything to do with laws, just density of ownership (yes,
double entendre).