Police: Pot might be factor in Montana killing

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
tekdc911 said:
cheers!!!!
Click to expand...
Oh dont count me as one of the gunless.

Iv enough ammo to survive years into the zombie apocalypse...

Just for the record, is there any particular way to store shotgun shells long term? Or is it just better to use a "first in - first out" system? We've ammo limits so having an emergency stash in a place I wouldn't have to constantly disturb would be what I would consider conscientious forward thinking ;)
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Well, I wasn't too convinced by those graphics, but when I looked at intentional homicide rates, the picture became more clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
There is no linear relationship between "gun" ownership and "safety" (perhaps logarithmic?). Other factors are seemingly more important in determining that metric. Perhaps density of ownership is something which needs to be examined more carefully, too?

Then there are "studies" which have looked at this in more detail, such as the following:
They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

Personally, I think the whole situation is far more complex than simple regression analysis on less than a handful of parameters. Although, I do lean towards the conclusion (i.e. More firearms != More safety) just based on the fundamental data.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Well, I wasn't too convinced by those graphics, but when I looked at intentional homicide rates, the picture became more clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
There is no linear relationship between "gun" ownership and "safety" (perhaps logarithmic?). Other factors are seemingly more important in determining that metric. Perhaps density of ownership is something which needs to be examined more carefully, too?

Then there are "studies" which have looked at this in more detail, such as the following:
They examined data from 27 developed countries, using gun ownership figures from the Small Arms Survey and deaths from the World Health Organisation, the National Center for Health Statistics and others. They also looked at crime rates compiled by the United Nations for an indication of the safety of each country.

More guns meant more deaths, they found. "The gun ownership rate was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death," says Bangalore. "Private gun ownership was highest in the US. Japan, on the other end, had an extremely low gun ownership rate. Similarly, South Africa (9.4 per 100,000) and the US (10.2 per 100,000) had extremely high firearm-related deaths, whereas the United Kingdom (0.25 per 100,000) had an extremely low rate of firearm-related deaths.

"There was a significant correlation between guns per head per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths with Japan being on one end of the spectrum and the US being on the other. This argues against the notion of more guns translating into less crime. South Africa was the only outlier in that the observed firearms-related death rate was several times higher than expected from gun ownership."

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.
"Although correlation is not the same as causation, it seems conceivable that abundant gun availability facilitates firearm-related deaths. Conversely, high crime rates may instigate widespread anxiety and fear, thereby motivating people to arm themselves and give rise to increased gun ownership, which, in turn, increases availability. The resulting vicious cycle could, bit by bit, lead to the polarized status that is now the case with the US," the doctors write.
"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

Personally, I think the whole situation is far more complex than simple regression analysis on less than a handful of parameters. Although, I do lean towards the conclusion (i.e. More firearms != More safety) just based on the fundamental data.
Click to expand...
You seem an intelligent fellow, now factor in overall violent crime and you'll see a disturbing parity come into play.

Just the weapon changes.
 
B

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
All I know is one time at the drug house, when I was using, there was a lovely young black fellow standing on the porch with a .22 hand gun, he was demanding entry. There were several of us on the inside, with shot guns and rifles. Those with the guns were obscured from his view.

Someone pumped the shotgun, and I firmly believe he changed his intended course of action because of that distinct sound.

I think he came with the objective of leaving with several thousand dollars worth of pharmaceuticals and sundry other drugs. He did not.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
You seem an intelligent fellow, now factor in overall violent crime and you'll see a disturbing parity come into play.

Just the weapon changes.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is another metric which can be factored in. But it then leads to more questions about source of violence. Is it cultural? Genetic? Media inspired? Pharmaceutical?
Then again, if we knew that, we'd probably be living in Huxley's Brave New World.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Yes, there is another metric which can be factored in. But it then leads to more questions about source of violence. Is it cultural? Genetic? Media inspired? Pharmaceutical?
Then again, if we knew that, we'd probably be living in Huxley's Brave New World.
Click to expand...
Well it seems to be universal, regardless of the cause.

Do the analysis, you'll agree with me in the end.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Is this shit moderated by stormfronters?

You delete my comments directed personally against a racist but leave the swine tripe he spews prominently displayed.

Why the fuck are his disgusting and offensive comments allowed and not mine? At least I only offended him.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Is this shit moderated by stormfronters?

You delete my comments directed personally against a racist but leave the swine tripe he spews prominently displayed.

Why the fuck are his disgusting and offensive comments allowed and not mine? At least I only offended him.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, you called BigotNRacist bold names?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top