T
Tom Plunket
Tim said:
Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
least crime.
Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
people in the US every year over guns.
-tom!
Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
least crime.
Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
people in the US every year over guns.
-tom!
L
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
|least crime.
Almost exactly opposite to the truth. Check the FBI uniform crime
statistics. Although the pattern is not 100% reliable, there is a
strong correlation between lax gun laws and gun-related deaths.
|Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
|people in the US every year over guns.
USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
large.
Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets or
ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Yours, Lulu...
|least crime.
Almost exactly opposite to the truth. Check the FBI uniform crime
statistics. Although the pattern is not 100% reliable, there is a
strong correlation between lax gun laws and gun-related deaths.
|Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
|people in the US every year over guns.
USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
large.
Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets or
ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Yours, Lulu...
D
Dave Brueck
That's it!?!? Wow... I'm amazed that number is so low! That means that, in the
U.S., you are twice as likely to die from an accident involving drunk drivers
(http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,3726,00.html), four times as likely to die
from influenza (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030107.htm), and 67
times as likely to die from cancer
(http://www.millennium.com/rd/oncology/treatment/index.asp) than to be
murdered with a firearm. The odds of getting killed that way are roughly the
same as the odds that you'll die from aspirin or similar drugs
(http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm).
R
Roy Smith
Tom Plunket said:
The most imporant thing you can learn in school is how to learn.
Especially in a fast-moving technology field, most of the cutting-edge
stuff you learn in school is going to be routine in 5 years and obsolete
in 10.
Languages come and go. Operating systems come and go. Programming
methodologies come and go (flowcharts and coding grids were the range
when I got into programming). The constant is knowing how to think and
how to learn. In school, people decide what you need to know and
spoon-feed it to you. In the real world, you'll need to be able to look
around, figure out for yourself what's important, and teach it to
yourself.
D
Dave Brueck
Aren't statistics fun?
Think about it: even intuitively, 255 is *way* too low for a population of 275
million (that's essentially zero - in a population that size 255 people
probably die in sneezing-releated incidents every year) - I don't think that
statistic represents what you think it represents.
Compare, for example, an article from the Journal of the American Medical
Association:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200
Even just considering *hospitalized* people, there were 100,000 deaths due to
adverse effects of drugs.
F
falling star
LotLE>
LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Unless you are including people killed by police in your figure?
And suicides?
LotLE>
LotLE> The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
LotLE> large.
LotLE>
LotLE> Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets
LotLE> or ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Absolutely agree with this. Also add, pulling facts out of
Handgun Control leaflets is equally unpersuasive. We should probably
agree that this is an emotional issue, and leave it at that. Or as Mark
Twain put it, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
However, when the little gangbangers in the neighborhood start
popping off, it is far more comforting to know that if they pop at me, I
can pop back, than it is to know that I can call the police. And when
the home invasion stories run in the newspaper, I don't worry as much as
if I had to depend only on calling the police.
The statistic the other poster mentioned about more guns lowering
crime: In states with concealed carry laws, *crime* is lower. Your
statistic about gun _deaths_ being higher in states with relaxed gun laws
is a canard. That is correlating gun deaths with overall crime. There
are issues of population as well. Again, we are talking statistics, and
there can be no agreement as there are so many correlated factors.
Once, I too was of faulty mind like you, fearful of my own shadow, thinking
that guns were the root of all evil, that they prowled the night and the
day, waiting to leap out and harm me. Then I saw the light.
Just shows to go you the effectiveness of propaganda. However you want
to take that.
LotLE>
LotLE> Yours, Lulu...
LotLE>
LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Unless you are including people killed by police in your figure?
And suicides?
LotLE>
LotLE> The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
LotLE> large.
LotLE>
LotLE> Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets
LotLE> or ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Absolutely agree with this. Also add, pulling facts out of
Handgun Control leaflets is equally unpersuasive. We should probably
agree that this is an emotional issue, and leave it at that. Or as Mark
Twain put it, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
However, when the little gangbangers in the neighborhood start
popping off, it is far more comforting to know that if they pop at me, I
can pop back, than it is to know that I can call the police. And when
the home invasion stories run in the newspaper, I don't worry as much as
if I had to depend only on calling the police.
The statistic the other poster mentioned about more guns lowering
crime: In states with concealed carry laws, *crime* is lower. Your
statistic about gun _deaths_ being higher in states with relaxed gun laws
is a canard. That is correlating gun deaths with overall crime. There
are issues of population as well. Again, we are talking statistics, and
there can be no agreement as there are so many correlated factors.
Once, I too was of faulty mind like you, fearful of my own shadow, thinking
that guns were the root of all evil, that they prowled the night and the
day, waiting to leap out and harm me. Then I saw the light.
Just shows to go you the effectiveness of propaganda. However you want
to take that.
LotLE>
LotLE> Yours, Lulu...
LotLE>
R
Richard Wesley
US murders with firearms were 8,259 in 1999, ranked #4 in the world.
Source: <http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=15>
The US is a bit better per capita firearms murders at #6
<http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=300>.
So while "falling star" appears to be swallowing some well cooked data,
the raw data is still pretty bad. Being in the company of South Africa,
Columbia, Zimbabwe and Mexico is not something that a progressive nation
should be proud of.
They don't have the data for this, but estimating from where I live
(Seattle, population 5e5, ~2/year) gives ~1000/year. I don't believe
from looking at the data that this would affect the US ranking
significantly. The US is in a big clump at the top of the rankings in
both total and per capita measurements.
He actually attributed this quote to Benjamin Disrali. Since neither of
them had any mathematical background (indeed they were both famous
rhetoricicians), I'm not sure they are qualified to comment on
statistics...
Speaking of canards, the whole state law comparison arguments used by
both sides in this are pretty sketchy (partly for the reasons you
present). There are much larger data sets available from other
countries and they pretty clearly show that the US is anomalous. What
to do about it may be somewhat debatable, but when you have similar
firearms murder rates to countries that have de facto civil wars, it is
prudent to ask what you have in common with those areas might lead to
similar results.
One can argue that there is no comparison, but the data is so striking
that I believe the burden of proof is on those who make that argument.
For the affirmative, we observe that a heavily armed populace is one
common factor, as is lack of a common culture or social identity
(generally caused by tribal or economic differences). Personally I
think it is both: The US populace has very little in common outside of
its political institutions and it is heavily armed. This is
historically a bad combination, for if you are used to demonizing others
and you can kill them, you probably will.
Which brings us back to this Handgun Control/NRA meme war. The fact
that US politics is havily polarized is partly due to this lack of
social cohesion and partly due to there being so much at stake in
controlling the largest economy in the world. Once the debate becomes a
shouting match and a battle of egos, social cohesion drops even further
and you have a positive feedback loop. So in a small way, the argument
that you two are having is actually contributing to the problem under
discussion.
Please note that I am /not/ arguing that the gun violence in the US is
being caused by NRA vigilantes hunting down HCI partisans or vice versa.
But I do believe that villification of the "other" in the media by
large, well-funded organizations intent on maintaining and increasing
their own power, leads to feelings of persecution and self-righteousness
in /all/ members of society. In the end, those with poor impulse
control and easy access to deadly weapons vent these emotions with
tragic results. (This includes the police in some cases.)
So I think there are actually two policy needs here: handgun control
and more civil public discourse. I think that both are required, but I
doubt that either will happen. But to the NRA gun nuts, I say that a
civil society is a far better guarentee of your safety than being well
armed, and to the HCI nuts I say, you are more likely to achieve your
goal through a civil society free of fear, for guns are only a symptom
of the fear, not its root cause.
Anyway, this is waay of topic and I need to get back to work now...
D
Dave Brueck
That's what I thought too initially, but the actual web page itself suggests
otherwise. OTOH, if it *is* 255 per 100k, then that just makes my previous
comment *more* true, and I don't think Lulu was attempting to do that! ;-)
-Dave
M
Michael Hudson
Roy Smith said:
I'm sure there are people who learnt ML during the CS program at
Cambridge more than five years ago...
<fx:runs away
>
L
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|> LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
|> LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
|>
|> Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
|> would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Take a look at the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
(part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention):
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
I do not seem to be able to create a direct URL, but on the form select
"Firearm" as the "cause or mechanism" of injury. This produces 28,663
deaths for Y2000. Incidentally, you can slice-and-dice the numbers
using this same form.
It is true, of course, that no all those deaths are homicides. Most of
them are suicides, and many are accidents. In other words EXACTLY what
I wrote in my original post. FWIW, gun accidents don't happen to people
without guns (or at least w/o nearby people having them). And suicides
attempted by gun succeed at a much higher rate than those done by other
means (and are much more likely to be attempted in the first place
because of the "convenience").
Yours, Lulu...
|> LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
|>
|> Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
|> would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Take a look at the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
(part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention):
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
I do not seem to be able to create a direct URL, but on the form select
"Firearm" as the "cause or mechanism" of injury. This produces 28,663
deaths for Y2000. Incidentally, you can slice-and-dice the numbers
using this same form.
It is true, of course, that no all those deaths are homicides. Most of
them are suicides, and many are accidents. In other words EXACTLY what
I wrote in my original post. FWIW, gun accidents don't happen to people
without guns (or at least w/o nearby people having them). And suicides
attempted by gun succeed at a much higher rate than those done by other
means (and are much more likely to be attempted in the first place
because of the "convenience").
Yours, Lulu...
M
mackstann
What's so bad about that? We already have a few billion too many humans
lying around anyways. Might as well let the volunteers do their thing..
M
maxx
And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am usually
armed
C
Cliff Wells
And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am usually
armed
I would think being armed increases your chances of engaging in an armed
confrontation. Your position somehow assumes you would win any such
conflict, which, until tested, is an unsupportable position.
I just watched "Bowling for Columbine" last weekend. Interesting watch
if you're interested in the topic.
Regards,
L
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|>USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
|And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am
|usually armed
Obviously, your probability is MUCH, MUCH higher of being one of them,
because you are armed. Most of them are suicides. My chance of being a
gun-inflicted suicide is 0.00%... yours is more (maybe you don't suffer
from depression now, and maybe no temporary personal tragedy has made
you despondent... but if such things do happen [of course, I do not wish
them on you]...)
Moreover, some of the rest are accidents. Again, my odds... well, more
than 0%, since my neighbors could misfire their guns in my direction.
But still much less than yours.
As for homicide, well, you're far more likely to be either a victim or a
killer. If you are armed, it is quite possible that an angry loved one
would have access to that gun.... and no doubt regret shooting you after
his/her anger cooled. And should you be mugged on the street by a
stranger, your chance of walking away dead (rather than just with less
money), are MANY times higher if you pull a gun on your assailant.
Yours, Lulu...
P.S. But wow! Isn't it fun to hear a big bang on the target range :-(.
|And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am
|usually armed
Obviously, your probability is MUCH, MUCH higher of being one of them,
because you are armed. Most of them are suicides. My chance of being a
gun-inflicted suicide is 0.00%... yours is more (maybe you don't suffer
from depression now, and maybe no temporary personal tragedy has made
you despondent... but if such things do happen [of course, I do not wish
them on you]...)
Moreover, some of the rest are accidents. Again, my odds... well, more
than 0%, since my neighbors could misfire their guns in my direction.
But still much less than yours.
As for homicide, well, you're far more likely to be either a victim or a
killer. If you are armed, it is quite possible that an angry loved one
would have access to that gun.... and no doubt regret shooting you after
his/her anger cooled. And should you be mugged on the street by a
stranger, your chance of walking away dead (rather than just with less
money), are MANY times higher if you pull a gun on your assailant.
Yours, Lulu...
P.S. But wow! Isn't it fun to hear a big bang on the target range :-(.
P
Peter Hansen
mackstann said:
This just points to the need for better gun training. The fact that
_any_ of these attempted suicides-by-gun actually fail clearly indicates
there are a lot of gun owners who don't know how to aim properly. ;-)
-Peter
L
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|> > Think about it: even intuitively, 255 is *way* too low for a population
|> > of 275 million (that's essentially zero - in a population that size 255
|> > people probably die in sneezing-releated incidents every year)
The page at:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
Let's you slice-and-dice injury mortality rates in quite a few ways.
You can check by age, by state, race, sex, and others. You can try
different time periods and normalizations. In a morbid way, it's a
fascinating URL. This doesn't include other causes of mortality like
disease, but some other CDC pages have useful info there.
The number I posted was adverse effects -excluding- medical care--i.e.
accidental over-ingestion of aspirin, which seemed closest to the
category Dave initially suggested.
However, the CDC lists 2804 deaths from adverse effects in medical care,
or about 1 per 100k. However, poisonings are at 20,230 in Y2000, which
is 7.35/100k. I'm not sure how the CDC split out adverse effects from
poisonings (obviously, -no- amount of insecticide is desirable to
digest, but a lot of things have dosage transitions between useful and
dangerous).
Anyway, I find the CDC to be pretty darn definitive in these reports.
Maybe not flawless, but a lot better than particular political advocacy
groups (whether pro- or anti-gun, or MAAD, or environmental [pro- or
con-], etc).
Yours, Lulu...
|> > of 275 million (that's essentially zero - in a population that size 255
|> > people probably die in sneezing-releated incidents every year)
The page at:
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
Let's you slice-and-dice injury mortality rates in quite a few ways.
You can check by age, by state, race, sex, and others. You can try
different time periods and normalizations. In a morbid way, it's a
fascinating URL. This doesn't include other causes of mortality like
disease, but some other CDC pages have useful info there.
The number I posted was adverse effects -excluding- medical care--i.e.
accidental over-ingestion of aspirin, which seemed closest to the
category Dave initially suggested.
However, the CDC lists 2804 deaths from adverse effects in medical care,
or about 1 per 100k. However, poisonings are at 20,230 in Y2000, which
is 7.35/100k. I'm not sure how the CDC split out adverse effects from
poisonings (obviously, -no- amount of insecticide is desirable to
digest, but a lot of things have dosage transitions between useful and
dangerous).
Anyway, I find the CDC to be pretty darn definitive in these reports.
Maybe not flawless, but a lot better than particular political advocacy
groups (whether pro- or anti-gun, or MAAD, or environmental [pro- or
con-], etc).
Yours, Lulu...
T
Tayss
Cliff Wells said:
That was a well made documentary, that did not take the easy route in
blaming guns for murder.
The irony though is that it raised suspicions on the media, but of
course this documentary is really part of the media. It steered the
audience very strongly at times, and I wish he released the unedited
footage of scenes like the surprise interview at the end.
C
Cliff Wells
It was interesting that he didn't really emphasize his own conclusion at
the end. I had the feeling that he didn't really intend to draw a
supportable conclusion, but rather simply point out how silly some
people's theories were and draw a conclusion *different* than what had
come before. Obviously the ultimate goal was to provoke thought on the
subject. His own conclusion, while made clear, can't be taken out of
the greater context of his efforts to show how any conclusion is
misleading at best and outright wrong in most cases.
Regards,
Cliff
M
maxx
And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am usually
armed
Lots of replies. Rather than create a large list of individual responses, I will
summarize in this one post.
I have never quite agreed with that concept. Being armed should not make one
"seek out" conflict, or otherwise engage in unsafe situations. Armed self
defense (IMO) is only for when an aggressor forces the issue, and presents no
other options (to escape for example). In other words, a last resort where the
only choices are to fight or die.
Three words: Training, training, training. Now I will readily admit that no
amount of training will prepare someone for all situations, but I will also
state that if one straps on a gun, and does not seek out expert instruction and
regular training, then they _are_ a threat to their own safety.
Why? Maybe it is because of my education, but I can look at any home, and spot
several ways to inflict great bodily harm to myself, without looking too hard.
Many of these methods do not require traditional weapons.
In other words, if I want to end my chapter, I do not need a gun.
Suicide by gun is a messy affair. I know it is a method used by many, but the
chance of failing to complete the task exists, and I would prefer more certain
methods. HOWEVER, I do not worry that my death will come at my own purposeful
hand. I enjoy life too much, and I do not worry too much about my personal
future turning out to change that negatively.
Cannot refute that one. Natural Selection anyone?
I think she would prefer a kitchen knife. YMMV.
I will refer to my comments above, and again restate, that as a civilian, I
believe firearms are a last ditch effort, kind of like nuclear weapons. Only
"push the button" if you are screwed if you do not. Deployment of a weapon (any
weapon) must be considered with extreme prudence. Now I will agree that this is
not often the case, and that is what causes many of the negative statistics. I
will also agree that persons who cannot or will not exercise the required
discretion should not carry weapons.
NEVER say NEVER. Life is not scripted. I do not believe in fate.
Times are a changin'. Different studies, and different ways of thought, result
in different conclusions. Again, based on the individuals training and
discipline, this concept can be either true or false. They used to preach
passiveness in rape-survival, acquiesce and live another day. Often the current
advice is opposite.
Many, many, many hours (hint, hint). More than the average (citizen) bear. And
that friends, IMO, is the real problem.
What the heck does all this have to do with Python? Perhaps a different, but
topically improper Python: http://www.colt.com/CMCI/Python.asp
Off to the range.
J
John J. Lee
[...]Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters said:
I'm very surprised -- that sounds way too low. Where is this category
defined?
Even when carefully defined in some sensible way, there must be big
uncertainties due to the present lack of knowledge about drug
interactions, and about other treatments causing hard-to-measure
increases in mortality over the long term. Epidemiology is a blunt
instrument, and we're still at an early stage in understanding
diseases.
Erm, anyone know the figures for mortality due to Pythons? <wink>
John