Gun Enthusiast With Popular Online Videos Is Shot to Death in Georgia

[himher 634]

I believe that was addressed earlier:

Unfortunately as I could not find a coloring book about it I guess you aren't expected to do anything.

I tried to help you out though. Sorry.

And what conclusions should or could one draw? Help me out here with your infinite wisdom.

Edited January 14, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I believe that was addressed earlier.

Well, no. There was no conclusion drawn out of that at all. It was merely mentioned that MA had a higher violent crime rate than TX while D.C. had a higher violent crime rate than MA. Then some reference was made to gun restrictions with those being most restrictive in D.C, less restrictive in MA and yet less restrictive in TX. That's an observation, not a conclusion. Now that observation sort of infers the conclusion that less restrictive gun laws result in safer states. I hate to bust bubbles all the time but that's a terribly false conclusion out of that very limited data. It would actually be stupid to draw that conclusion so I didn't want to suggest that you did that. And I still don't.

Which is why I am asking what conclusion you think is to be drawn from that observation. See, the problem with that conclusion is that several states like TN, SC, AK, AR, FL, OK and MO all have less restrictive gun laws but higher violent crime rates than MA. Obviously, less restrictive gun laws don't make a state safer. There's more to it than that.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[himher 634]

That is correct. From your own post however the following conclusions can be drawn:

There is no correlation between gun restrictions and violent crime

Thanks dude. I bet that just hurt like hell to admit that didnt it.

Well, no. There was no conclusion drawn out of that at all. It was merely mentioned that MA had a higher violent crime rate than TX while D.C. had a higher violent crime rate than MA. Then some reference was made to gun restrictions with those being most restrictive in D.C, less restrictive in MA and yet less restrictive in TX. That's an observation, not a conclusion. Now that observation sort of infers the conclusion that less restrictive gun laws result in safer states. I hate to bust bubbles all the time but that's a terribly false conclusion out of that very limited data. It would actually be stupid to draw that conclusion so I didn't want to suggest that you did that. And I still don't.

Which is why I am asking what conclusion you think is to be drawn from that observation. See, the problem with that conclusion is that several states like TN, SC, AK, AR, FL, OK and MO all have less restrictive gun laws but higher violent crime rates than MA. Obviously, less restrictive gun laws don't make a state safer. There's more to it than that.

Edited January 14, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That is correct. From your own post however the following conclusions can be drawn.

There is no correlation between gun restrictions and violent crime

Thanks dude. I bet that just hurt like hell to admit that didnt it.

No hurt here. Violent crime has no correlation to gun restrictions. Gun deaths do have a correlation - less restrictions, more gun deaths.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[scotinmass 588]

Massachusetts: Where one can't buy maple syrup or cheese but a good place to get raped, robbed, or stabbed

Please take a moment of silence to feel proud of your state dude. Nice goin' but not exactly what we want copied onto OUR communities LOL

Earlier this week, the Massachusetts Health Council released its biennial compendium on heath, "Common Health in the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Trends in the Preventable Determinants of Health," which includes statistics on everything from tobacco use to obesity, and from asthma to violence. The authors of the report, drawing upon FBI crime counts, note that Massachusetts has the unenviable distinction of leading all states in the Northeast in the rate of violent crime: "At a rate of 457 violent crimes per 100,000 population, the Commonwealth was once again, as in multiple previous years, statistically the most violent state in the Northeast region (comprised on the six New England States plus NY, NJ, and PA)."

http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2010/11/is_mass_really_1_in_violent_cr.html

Yay. Go Mass! Not only do we kick New York's butt at football but at violent crime as well! :dance:

[scotinmass 588]

The data probably includes all shootings aka self-defense, police action, and criminal shootings

Otherwise Massachusetts with a violent crime rate of 428.4 ranks higher than Texas with violent crime rate of 408.5 and is 1/3 the violent crime rate of DC at 1202.1

Texas has fewer restrictions on guns than Mass which has fewer restrictions on guns than DC.

You seem to think that all violent crimes are gun crimes. Punching someone in the mouth is a violent crime. Throwing a brick through a window is a violent crime. Robbing a store with a baseball bat is a violent crime. Just because Mass has a high violent crime rate doesn't mean that the strict gun controls aren't working. Quite the opposite.

[himher 634]

If I wanted to continue posting about gun crimes I would have. I already posted about that using published ownership rates and shooting rates. I correlated everything together and after looking at the data I do think that there is a higher victim rate among unarmed people than there is among armed people.

The list of violent crimes do not include throwing bricks through windows LOL. Did you even look up the data from the source?

I also spent a lot of time comparing murder rates. Murder rates do not correlate to gun ownership rates at all but they do correlate to poverty rates very closely.

You seem to think that all violent crimes are gun crimes. Punching someone in the mouth is a violent crime. Throwing a brick through a window is a violent crime. Robbing a store with a baseball bat is a violent crime. Just because Mass has a high violent crime rate doesn't mean that the strict gun controls aren't working. Quite the opposite.

Edited January 15, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I already posted about that using published ownership rates and shooting rates. I correlated everything together and after looking at the data I do think that there is a higher victim rate among unarmed people than there is among armed people.

You correlated everything together?

Here, try an visualize the correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates 1) internationally and 2) among the states domestically. Unsurprisingly, it's the same trend all around: There is a positive correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates. To pre-empt that line of argument, correlation doesn't mean causation.

[himher 634]

You keep forgetting that ALL firearms deaths, including self-defense, are included in your data.

MURDER rates by state look a lot different as do CRIME rates.

All your chart shows is that you are more likely to get shot committing a crime in some states than others. What the FBI data shows is that you are more likely to be victimized in states where you are least likely to be shot committing a crime. You have yet to provide a logical explanation for this.

The 2011 violent crime rate in Canada was 1,231 per 100000 population. It was 3 times the violent crime rate in Texas. Canada is safer. I love liberal logic. What I don't understand is why you wouldnt check before you posted your comparison. Not smart.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11692/tbl/tbl01a-eng.htm Here ya go. Play "fun with numbers" with this data. The rate is similar to Washington, DC which has gun laws similar to Canada.

Any explanation for that - genius?

You correlated everything together?

Here, try an visualize the correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates 1) internationally and 2) among the states domestically. Unsurprisingly, it's the same trend all around: There is a positive correlation between gun ownership and gun death rates. To pre-empt that line of argument, correlation doesn't mean causation.

Edited January 15, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You keep forgetting that ALL firearms deaths, including self-defense, are included in your data.

You keep saying that but it keeps being incorrect. I don't forget that at all. I am very well aware of what the data represents. Gun deaths. Death by firearm. Any death by firearm, all deaths by firearm. What the data shows is that more firearms positively correlate to more firearm deaths. We know that correlation does not imply causation. However, I'd place a pretty significant bet on the assumption that if we had fewer guns, fewer people would die from guns. And if fewer people died from guns, I would also place a significant bet on there being fewer premature deaths overall. Fewer homicides, fewer suicides and fewer accidental deaths. Seems a worthy goal to pursue.

[himher 634]

I'd place a pretty significant bet on the assumption that if we had fewer guns, more people would be victimized by violent crime. And if more people are victimized by violent crime, I would also place a significant bet on there being more premature deaths overall. More homicides, no change in suicides but an increase in attempted suicides see below (if someone wants to commit suicide they'll find a way) and no significant change in accidental deaths since firearms accounted for 851 of the 118,043 accidental deaths (that's not even 1%) in 2010 which is the latest available year for breakdown and detailed data.

Some interesting notes on suicide attempts in 2010:

The overall cost is even higher when all intentionally inflicted self-harm is included. In 2010, there were more than 450,000 injuries in this category, which cost the economy an additional $3 billion in direct medical care costs and $5.1 billion in indirect costs due to lost wages and productivity. The rate of self-inflicted injuries increased by 36 percent since 2000, a greater increase than suicide itself.

Tight gun control and tighter gun restrictions seem to be a worthy goal if one believes that the rights of the criminal to victimize others in the community outweigh the rights of the average citizen to protect himself or herself from victimization and if one otherwise wishes to accomplish exactly nothing else.

You keep saying that but it keeps being incorrect. I don't forget that at all. I am very well aware of what the data represents. Gun deaths. Death by firearm. Any death by firearm, all deaths by firearm. What the data shows is that more firearms positively correlate to more firearm deaths. We know that correlation does not imply causation. However, I'd place a pretty significant bet on the assumption that if we had fewer guns, fewer people would die from guns. And if fewer people died from guns, I would also place a significant bet on there being fewer premature deaths overall. Fewer homicides, fewer suicides and fewer accidental deaths. Seems a worthy goal to pursue.

Edited January 15, 2013 by himher

[JohnR! 5,495]

"I ♥ Guns and Coffee," it read.

Mr. Ratliff's passion for firearms made him something of a celebrity on the Internet, where he helped make scores of videos about high-powered and exotic guns and explosives. His YouTube channel, called FPSRussia, became the site's ninth largest, with nearly 3.5 million subscribers and more than 500 million views.

But last week, the authorities said, Mr. Ratliff, 32, ended up on the wrong end of a gun.

Karma perhaps?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'd place a pretty significant bet on the assumption that if we had fewer guns, more people would be victimized by violent crime.

And that bet would be based on what? Where is it shown that more guns translate into fewer violent crimes and vice versa? Right, nowhere.

[himher 634]

It's only fair to use your own circles. The violent crime rate in Canada is 1231. The violent crime rate in the US is 386.3. There are WAY WAY more guns per capita in the US than Canada and for a bonus our guns look cooler too.

So why don't we have a higher rate of violent crime? All those loose and cool-looking guns. Can you get your colors out and make some more circles to explain this?

And that bet would be based on what? Where is it shown that more guns translate into fewer violent crimes and vice versa? Right, nowhere.

Edited January 16, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

On your chart, way at the top, Mississippi has one of the highest gun ownership rates and highest rates of firearms deaths.

They ALSO enjoy a violent crime rate of 299, only slightly higher than Hawaii at 281 and well below the national average. They score (4) out of (100) points on the brady scale of gun laws but their community safety / crime rate on population basis tops every single state that scores above them. Please apply your theories on gun ownership and community safety to this and provide rational explanation.

Edited January 16, 2013 by himher