Another good guy stops attack

benjs

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Fires are rare. Paranoid?

Fire extinguishers put out more fires than they create. Guns do not 'save' more people than they 'kill'.

There were 365,000 home fires in 2012. There were 8,855 firearm-related homicides in 2012 and 19,990 suicides in 2011.

I would argue you're the one that's paranoid. But this isn't a debate about your perception of reality, this is reality. If you're going to banter; then at least research, cite references, do the math, and show your work. That is to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,

I'll just leave this here...



We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! USA! USA! USA!

While I agree with you, this is not a good chart proving correlation in my opinion.

I've added a 1:1 trendline on the chart below.



For a graph with guns per 100 people along X and gun deaths per 100,000 people along Y, the trend line I've added represents gun deaths per 1,000 guns within the population. Any statistician would look at this line and see that the data points don't deviate much from the line (implying it's a reasonable average of all countries) with the exception of Mexico who is truly horrifically off the charts with gun deaths so I will call it an outlier. Note how many countries lay just along the trend line, implying they are close to the global average in terms of a typical ratio of gun deaths per 1,000 guns. The further away a data point is from the trend line (if we're assuming it's close enough to a global average, which it appears to be to me), the more a trend is perceived to deviate from the norm. In this case, the US's (for all intents and purposes) does not. Mexico's, Canada's, and Switzerland's, however, are significantly greater gun deaths per 1,000 guns. So, to reiterate, this chart does not actually imply any unusual trends for America, but surprisingly does for Canada and Switzerland. Mexico, with heavily publicized drug trade related atrocities occurring far too regularly, does not surprise me at this point in time.

benjs

jeffbr said:

Just saw this on the local news. A woman used a fire extinguisher as a weapon in a robbery. Just thought it was funny that I saw this story this morning on the news and see that this thread has veered to fire extinguishers.
http://catchwmw.com/2014/09/12/violent-female-robber-shes-a-wmw-first-caught-on-camera-assaulting-gas-station-clerk-with-a-fire-extinguisher/

I just had to open my mouth about fire extinguishers being used as weapons!

CM189191

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Fires are rare. Paranoid?

Fire extinguishers put out more fires than they create. Guns do not 'save' more people than they 'kill'.

There were 365,000 home fires in 2012. There were 8,855 firearm-related homicides in 2012 and 19,990 suicides in 2011.

I would argue you're the one that's paranoid. But this isn't a debate about your perception of reality, this is reality. If you're going to banter; then at least research, cite references, do the math, and show your work. That is to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,

I'll just leave this here...



We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! USA! USA! USA!

While I agree with you, this is not a good chart proving correlation in my opinion.

I've added a 1:1 trendline on the chart below.



For a graph with guns per 100 people along X and gun deaths per 100,000 people along Y, the trend line I've added represents gun deaths per 1,000 guns within the population. Any statistician would look at this line and see that the data points don't deviate much from the line (implying it's a reasonable average of all countries) with the exception of Mexico who is truly horrifically off the charts with gun deaths so I will call it an outlier. Note how many countries lay just along the trend line, implying they are close to the global average in terms of a typical ratio of gun deaths per 1,000 guns. The further away a data point is from the trend line (if we're assuming it's close enough to a global average, which it appears to be to me), the more a trend is perceived to deviate from the norm. In this case, the US's (for all intents and purposes) does not. Mexico's, Canada's, and Switzerland's, however, are significantly greater gun deaths per 1,000 guns. So, to reiterate, this chart does not actually imply any unusual trends for America, but surprisingly does for Canada and Switzerland. Mexico, with heavily publicized drug trade related atrocities occurring far too regularly, does not surprise me at this point in time.

You're interpreting the data wrong. x & y axis are both per capita.

More guns per capita = more gun deaths per capita.

benjs

CM189191 said:

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Fires are rare. Paranoid?

Fire extinguishers put out more fires than they create. Guns do not 'save' more people than they 'kill'.

There were 365,000 home fires in 2012. There were 8,855 firearm-related homicides in 2012 and 19,990 suicides in 2011.

I would argue you're the one that's paranoid. But this isn't a debate about your perception of reality, this is reality. If you're going to banter; then at least research, cite references, do the math, and show your work. That is to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,

I'll just leave this here...



We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! USA! USA! USA!

While I agree with you, this is not a good chart proving correlation in my opinion.

I've added a 1:1 trendline on the chart below.



For a graph with guns per 100 people along X and gun deaths per 100,000 people along Y, the trend line I've added represents gun deaths per 1,000 guns within the population. Any statistician would look at this line and see that the data points don't deviate much from the line (implying it's a reasonable average of all countries) with the exception of Mexico who is truly horrifically off the charts with gun deaths so I will call it an outlier. Note how many countries lay just along the trend line, implying they are close to the global average in terms of a typical ratio of gun deaths per 1,000 guns. The further away a data point is from the trend line (if we're assuming it's close enough to a global average, which it appears to be to me), the more a trend is perceived to deviate from the norm. In this case, the US's (for all intents and purposes) does not. Mexico's, Canada's, and Switzerland's, however, are significantly greater gun deaths per 1,000 guns. So, to reiterate, this chart does not actually imply any unusual trends for America, but surprisingly does for Canada and Switzerland. Mexico, with heavily publicized drug trade related atrocities occurring far too regularly, does not surprise me at this point in time.

You're interpreting the data wrong. x & y axis are both per capita.

More guns per capita = more gun deaths per capita.

I had a thorough analysis written up, then came to the conclusion that I was wrong. My apologies, CM! You're correct.

brianlux

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

callen said:

unsung said:

So if you are out walking your kids who is responsible for their protection?

I know that I'm okay and there aren't people out to get me or my family.

Unfortunately it happens, even to those that think it can't happen to them.

So again, you are out walking your kids, your four year old looks up to who to protect her?

Really? How many times have you been assaulted/robbed/etc while out on a walk around the block?

Because I go for walks all the time and that shiat has never happened to me...

I agree. I'm sixty three years old, have lived in many different towns and cities in four states, and have walked the streets of many towns, small cities and large cities (including Hunter's Point, and other rough neighborhoods in San Francisco in the early 70's before gentrification and Harlem in the early 80's before Clintonification). I've lived in good neighborhoods and I've lived in really run down neighborhoods. In all that time the only people I personally know who have been assaulted are as follows:

-A cousin in law was stabbed and killed after getting in a fight in a very rough neck bar.
-A friend who was a bouncer was shot to death while trying to break up a fight.

(both of those obviously not your everyday walking around town scenarios)

-Me in a gas station off I-80 late on a Saturday night (stupid move on my part). As I've explained previously, if I'd tried to take a gun out against the punk and his three gang member buddies instead of backing the guy off long enough to get my wife and step daughter and me in the car the the hell out of there, someone might have died. No one died. I was punched in the head but no one went to the hospital.

Vigilance, good, smart trip planning, staying out of bad ass bars and not working as a bouncer (or similar dangerous occupation) are probably your best means of protection.

callen

unsung said:

callen said:

unsung said:

callen said:

unsung said:

So if you are out walking your kids who is responsible for their protection?

I know that I'm okay and there aren't people out to get me or my family.

Unfortunately it happens, even to those that think it can't happen to them.

So again, you are out walking your kids, your four year old looks up to who to protect her?

Having a gun increases odds that either myself or my family is injured or killed by a gun. Also the odds are low and responsibility and pain in the ass of having a gun loaded and on me at all times in event that I may be able to use it aren't worth it. Guy walks behind me and sticks me up. Let's say I was with child would I get into gun battle. Hell no. They can have my stuff. No they aren't going to kidnap or some paranoid stuff.

Guns don't make you safer. They are a liability.

Do you have a fire extinguisher?

I don't walk around carrying a fire extinguisher. No Do I have in in my shop, boat and kitchen sure. They just sit there. They aren't a liability. Guns are.

For me guns are a liability and not worth it. And again a pain in the butt.

brianlux

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4wBZ5q_Ug

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

callen said:

unsung said:

So if you are out walking your kids who is responsible for their protection?

I know that I'm okay and there aren't people out to get me or my family.

Unfortunately it happens, even to those that think it can't happen to them.

So again, you are out walking your kids, your four year old looks up to who to protect her?

It seems like you view a scenario where he would be challenged to a duel or something. If my intent is to rob someone I certainly won't let them know that until I'm in a position to be successful at it.

Let's say you are walking your 4 year old and have a large pistol strapped/holstered somewhere on your body. If I want to rob you the first thing I'll do is point my gun at you and demand that you drop the weapon.

How does having the weapon put you in a different position in that case? You will cooperate or you will get shot. Your weapon is useless.

callen

Even if it's hidden. Will I try to surprise perp. Try to shoot him? With my kid next to me? For an I phone and 20 bucks? Guns are a liability and a risk. They offer false comfort in my opinion. And heavy. What a pain to carry it at the ready all the time.

Gern Blansten

callen said:

Even if it's hidden. Will I try to surprise perp. Try to shoot him? With my kid next to me? For an I phone and 20 bucks? Guns are a liability and a risk. They offer false comfort in my opinion. And heavy. What a pain to carry it at the ready all the time.

Exactly....it just escalates the stress of the crime

I can see if you have a gun and you come upon a crime being committed and are able to be the hero and save the day but that's going to be rare. More guns = more innocent deaths.

Walking the miles

I'm just glad the perpetrator only had a knife and not a gun. If he had a gun, most assured the two victims would be dead, and maybe more. I gotta say I'm a little surprised by the amount of deaths by guns per 100k in Canada.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

benjs said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

Fires are rare. Paranoid?

Fire extinguishers put out more fires than they create. Guns do not 'save' more people than they 'kill'.

There were 365,000 home fires in 2012. There were 8,855 firearm-related homicides in 2012 and 19,990 suicides in 2011.

I would argue you're the one that's paranoid. But this isn't a debate about your perception of reality, this is reality. If you're going to banter; then at least research, cite references, do the math, and show your work. That is to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts,

I'll just leave this here...



We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! USA! USA! USA!

While I agree with you, this is not a good chart proving correlation in my opinion.

I've added a 1:1 trendline on the chart below.



For a graph with guns per 100 people along X and gun deaths per 100,000 people along Y, the trend line I've added represents gun deaths per 1,000 guns within the population. Any statistician would look at this line and see that the data points don't deviate much from the line (implying it's a reasonable average of all countries) with the exception of Mexico who is truly horrifically off the charts with gun deaths so I will call it an outlier. Note how many countries lay just along the trend line, implying they are close to the global average in terms of a typical ratio of gun deaths per 1,000 guns. The further away a data point is from the trend line (if we're assuming it's close enough to a global average, which it appears to be to me), the more a trend is perceived to deviate from the norm. In this case, the US's (for all intents and purposes) does not. Mexico's, Canada's, and Switzerland's, however, are significantly greater gun deaths per 1,000 guns. So, to reiterate, this chart does not actually imply any unusual trends for America, but surprisingly does for Canada and Switzerland. Mexico, with heavily publicized drug trade related atrocities occurring far too regularly, does not surprise me at this point in time.

I think a fun and educational thing to do would be to make the graph/chart an 'interactive' game.

Perhaps if we numbered all the countries and had the gun enthusiasts connect the dots... a small handgun would emerge and they could clap after they completed the task.

Of course, you'd have to exclude the USA from this exercise though because it's waaay too far away from all the other countries in terms of gun ownership and gun deaths and would distort the drawing. Those gun guys probably wouldn't like that because they would feel slighted the USA was excluded and think they were being picked on.

Yah. Now that I think about it... it wouldn't be that great after all.

Gern Blansten

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-shoots-wife-face-accidentally

Another great example

but hey...at least he THOUGHT he was a good guy stopping an attack

CM189191

Gern Blansten said:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-shoots-wife-face-accidentally

Another great example

but hey...at least he THOUGHT he was a good guy stopping an attack

My money's on Florida....

Clicks link....Yup, it's Florida!

josevolution

Gern Blansten said:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-shoots-wife-face-accidentally

Another great example

but hey...at least he THOUGHT he was a good guy stopping an attack

So he just started shooting no lights in the kitchen just shoot and put light on afterwards ...he was probably trained to shoot & ask ?sss later

chadwick

Gern Blansten said:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-shoots-wife-face-accidentally

Another great example

but hey...at least he THOUGHT he was a good guy stopping an attack

the guy is a complete fool. maybe he done it on purpose? stupid is stupid. luckily he's also a bad shot

callen

chadwick said:

Gern Blansten said:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-shoots-wife-face-accidentally

Another great example

but hey...at least he THOUGHT he was a good guy stopping an attack

the guy is a complete fool. maybe he done it on purpose? stupid is stupid. luckily he's also a bad shot

Yeah thought same thing.

Moonpig

unsung said:

http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/20161608?mobile_direct=y

Who knows how many he saved.

good guy vs bad guy??!!......I'm sorry but if that is the level of commentary with which you wish to put across your point I'm out.......time would be better spent watching Rambo or any number of Chuck Norris flicks, as this seems to compliment your apparent world view.

rr165892

How many people innocently ran over,hit someone in this country with a car yesterday? I bet it trumps accidental shootings by 20x
How about power tool ER visits.I bet there are hundreds a day.
How about stabbings?
How about assault with club,bat,pipe?
All outnumber accidental shootings by a lot everyday.
Just sayin

Moonpig

rr165892 said:

How many people innocently ran over,hit someone in this country with a car yesterday? I bet it trumps accidental shootings by 20x
How about power tool ER visits.I bet there are hundreds a day.
How about stabbings?
How about assault with club,bat,pipe?
All outnumber accidental shootings by a lot everyday.
Just sayin

yeah your absolute right, America has no problems when it comes to the almighty gun. It's all a massive bias perpetuated by the global media.

nothing to see here.....move on