Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago

[Teddy B 17,252]

Using a simple average distorts the numbers when you have large differences in population. For this reason, incident numbers are customarily reported in units per 100,000 of population. This offers a view that is more apples to apples.

In example, the 2010 census lists CA population at 37.3 million while CT had a population of 3.6 million. California's number could be ten times greater than Connecticut's, yet the number of incidents per 100,000 of population would be roughly equivalent. If you consider that Vermont had 2010 population of about 626,000, the distortion induced by using simple percentages is even more dramatic.

Slinging numbers can be fun; slinging them correctly can be informative.

It plays out pretty much the same if you do it by population as well.

In your post that I replied to you stated: "Pennsylvania, Arizona and Florida, states with considerably less restrictive firearms laws, have not experienced the same level of carnage. Food for thought..." I asked you what you qualify as "carnage" because two of the three states you listed are above average when it comes to gun deaths in the US. They both have very lax gun laws and one of those states (PA), allows open carry, so that pretty much goes against what you are saying about lax gun laws and more guns being a positive.

There are states with tough gun laws that have high numbers of gun deaths and there are states with very lax gun laws and still experience the high number of gun deaths. The deciding factors of this aren't necessarily the gun laws, but a combination of factors including the economic make up of each area.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Teddy B

[Teddy B 17,252]

Using a simple average distorts the numbers when you have large differences in population. For this reason, incident numbers are customarily reported in units per 100,000 of population. This offers a view that is more apples to apples.

In example, the 2010 census lists CA population at 37.3 million while CT had a population of 3.6 million. California's number could be ten times greater than Connecticut's, yet the number of incidents per 100,000 of population would be roughly equivalent. If you consider that Vermont had 2010 population of about 626,000, the distortion induced by using simple percentages is even more dramatic.

Slinging numbers can be fun; slinging them correctly can be informative.

I'll sling the population numbers for you.

The following is from 2013:

National firearm death rate is 10.64 per 100,000 people.

The states that you claim are safer due to lax gun laws have these numbers.

Arizona is 14.20 per 100,000

Florida is 12.49 per 100,000

Pennsylvania is 11.36 per 100,000

Meanwhile the states that you claim have more "carnage" because of more stringent gun laws have these numbers.

California is 7.89 per 100,000

CT is 4.48 per 100,000

CO is 11.75 per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

The numbers simply do not back your claim.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

It plays out pretty much the same if you do it by population as well.

In your post that I replied to you stated: "Pennsylvania, Arizona and Florida, states with considerably less restrictive firearms laws, have not experienced the same level of carnage. Food for thought..." I asked you what you qualify as "carnage" because two of the three states you listed are above average when it comes to gun deaths in the US. They both have very lax gun laws and one of those states (PA), allows open carry, so that pretty much goes against what you are saying about lax gun laws and more guns being a positive.

There are states with tough gun laws that have high numbers of gun deaths and there are states with very lax gun laws and still experience the high number of gun deaths. The deciding factors of this aren't necessarily the gun laws, but a combination of factors including the economic make up of each area.

The original context was the effect of firearm laws on mass shooting incidents. Tossing individual homicides into the discussion muddies the waters considerably. You should probably initiate a separate discussion thread for individual homicides because the effects of alcohol, passion and stupidity will likely be as influential as those of firearms.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

I'll sling the population numbers for you.

The following is from 2013:

National firearm death rate is 10.64 per 100,000 people.

The states that you claim are safer due to lax gun laws have these numbers.

Arizona is 14.20 per 100,000

Florida is 12.49 per 100,000

Pennsylvania is 11.36 per 100,000

Meanwhile the states that you claim have more "carnage" because of more stringent gun laws have these numbers.

California is 7.89 per 100,000

CT is 4.48 per 100,000

CO is 11.75 per 100,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

The numbers simply do not back your claim.

The discussion was about the effects of firearm laws on mass shooting incidents. Run those numbers and see what they look like. Changing the context of an argument to suit your numbers is lame.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The discussion was about the effects of firearm laws on mass shooting incidents. Run those numbers and see what they look like. Changing the context of an argument to suit your numbers is lame.

No need to get your undies in a bunch.

I stated in the very first sentence of my first reply to you that "I was not sure what you qualified as carnage", you didn't answer that until now. Not my fault you can't follow along.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Teddy B

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

No need to get your undies in a bunch.

I stated in the very first sentence of my first reply to you that "I was not sure what you qualified as carnage", you didn't answer that until now. Not my fault you can't follow along.

I'm sorry! I assumed you were aware of the discussion topic, "Concealed Permit Holder Stops Attempted Mass Shooting in Chicago" . Hopefully, this will get you on the same page. Do try to stay on topic.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I'm sorry!

Apology accepted.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The discussion was about the effects of firearm laws on mass shooting incidents. Run those numbers and see what they look like. Changing the context of an argument to suit your numbers is lame.

Back to the topic.

There simply isn't enough data or evidence to support your theory that these mass shootings take place in certain states because of their strict gun laws. Like I posted earlier, the number of annual gun deaths in the states you listed do not support that theory.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Teddy B

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The original context was the effect of firearm laws on mass shooting incidents. Tossing individual homicides into the discussion muddies the waters considerably. You should probably initiate a separate discussion thread for individual homicides because the effects of alcohol, passion and stupidity will likely be as influential as those of firearms.

I strongly have to disagree. Mass shootings Incidents are terrible but what possible mental jujitsu go's into the theory that the three States you held up as safer due to lax gun laws all having above average per 100,000 gun death rates, vs the three States you knock due to their tough gun restrictions which all fall below the National average, is somehow not fair or relevant?

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

I strongly have to disagree. Mass shootings Incidents are terrible but what possible mental jujitsu go's into the theory that the three States you held up as safer due to lax gun laws all having above average per 100,000 gun death rates, vs the three States you knock due to their tough gun restrictions which all fall below the National average, is somehow not fair or relevant?

Essentially, you are hijacking a discussion thread for a different discussion. If you wish to beat the murder rate v. gun laws drum, it would be appropriate to begin a new Discussion thread and see who wants to play.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Essentially, you are hijacking a discussion thread for a different discussion. If you wish to beat the murder rate v. gun laws drum, it would be appropriate to begin a new Discussion thread and see who wants to play.

Hijacking? I'm sure that you have realized that I was actually neither the first nor only person who has responded to your assertion. Without researching if you came up with your premise that stricter gun laws are the causal factor in increasing mass shootings (Snopes has already dispensed with the RW blogosphere fiction of 'more mass shootings under Obama' from which you may have derived your data for your theory) but actual hard data shows that the States with the loosest gun laws have above average per 100,000 violent gun deaths which you claim are safer are clearly not. No hijacking going on, just putting a solid hole in your theory. More likely to be shot dead, regardless of how many other people your shooter kills at the same time, is clearly not safer. If I was hijacking you I might accept your theory and add but concealed carry and looser gun laws protect you from mass shootings but increase your likelihood of getting shot solo or in pairs. Fair?

[Sousuke 1,214]

Here are the states for gun murder rates and mass murders. There doesn't seem to a correlation between those.

Please note that these are more focused than what you will see posted by the Brady Campaign which always uses gun deaths.

https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

Edited December 12, 2015 by Sousuke

[Sousuke 1,214]

If I had to to give the penultimate on guns it would be this.

Ownership rates of guns do not really effect crime...either way within the US. CCW rates really do not effect crime or mass shootings either way.

More guns for the general population means more accidental deaths.

If you train, store your firearms safely, follow the rules of safe gun handling your personal odds of accidental death drop precipitously. If you are scared, buy a gun and throw it in your closet, your odds of dying increase.

If you carry a CCW, you personally have better odds in a mass shooting....its just that you are such a minority the chances you or any other CCW will be there are slim.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Very well-thought out response, I happen to agree with all of it.

At the end of the day, guns are not the problem. It's the sickos behind the gun, the ones that use it as an easy way to win, that are the problem.

If I had to to give the penultimate on guns it would be this.

Ownership rates of guns do not really effect crime...either way within the US. CCW rates really do not effect crime or mass shootings either way.

More guns for the general population means more accidental deaths.

If you train, store your firearms safely, follow the rules of safe gun handling your personal odds of accidental death drop precipitously. If you are scared, buy a gun and throw it in your closet, your odds of dying increase.

If you carry a CCW, you personally have better odds in a mass shooting....its just that you are such a minority the chances you or any other CCW will be there are slim.

[lostinblue 1,989]