-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why? (Continued)
- Thread starter TCassidy
- Start date
- Status
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
I would relook at your link. The rate stated on Wikipedia is 7.64 per 100,000 for Mexico and 10.16 per 100,000 for US.
But even if you use the data from gunpolicy.org where they quote higher rates of gun deaths for Mexico which are above the US rate, it still is in line with theory I proposed.
Mexico vs US
Civilian Firearms per 100 people
Gun deaths per 100,000 people
Nationmaster Mexico vs US
Mexico is poor + few guns and the US is rich + many guns. In my illustration those two groups would have similar levels of "some gun violence" with the poor + few guns likely having more than the rich + many guns. These tables show exactly that because even thought Mexico has significant poverty and drug cartel problems compared to the US, their gun deaths per 100,000 is pretty much on par with the US (10.54 for US, 11.23 for Mexico).
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
Lott's critiques (which are easily dismissed if you read the article)
1. Using state level data the study claims a positive relationship between the percentage of suicides committed with guns (they call this the gun ownership rate rather than what it actually is) and the firearm homicide rate. The big problem with their measure of gun ownership is that it picks up a lot of demographic information that may itself be related to homicide and to crime.
The article directly addresses this twice
and
Using suicide rate as a proxy for gun ownership is a standard proxy used in scientific studies on gun ownership because it is the best proxy available for states that do not collect regular data on gun ownership.
2) Do we care about total murders or murders involving guns?
The study looks at gun homicides. I don't really understand why he is making this argument but my guess is that he thinks that total murder is the better outcome to assess because of a theoretical argument that guns prevent more murders than they cause? Unfortunately for him that theoretical argument is contrary to any quality evidence we have.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
3) "None of the existing panel studies examined data more recent than 1999." ... The authors seem completely unaware of the third edition of More Guns, Less Crime that looked at data up through 2005 -- six years longer than they claim. Of course, my research also started with 1977, not 1981 as they did.
He uses his book as an example of data that they should use in their research? That is considered a valid criticism? Really? If you are trying to do a scientific paper that you want to stand up to peer review, it is a good idea not to use biased data sources where the person compiling the data has a clear agenda in mind. Otherwise their paper would receive the same reception as his book in academic circles and not be taken seriously.
4) No explanation is offered for why they leave Washington, DC out of their regressions. I can offer one: it weakens their results.
I'm trying to see where they leave out Washington DC but it isn't in the published article. It might be in the Appendix A but I can't see the Appendix unless I have a subscription to the journal. I can't comment on this critique because I don't see where Washington DC was left out.
5) Only a very small percentage of the prison population are there for murder. Possibly a percent or two in any given year. Do changes in the share of the prison population for larceny or burglary really help explain a lot of the variation in murder rates? A more direct measure would be the arrest rate for murder and/or the number of people in prison for murder and/or the death penalty execution rate.
Seems like a nitpick on this section of the article:
It was the rate of non-violent property crime that is being controlled for, of which larceny and burglary are two examples. This is among a long list of factors being controlled for. Seems like Lott is giving this way too much weight for a minor detail which looks like standard practice in previous similar studies.
6) "To develop a final, more parsimonious model, we first entered all variables found to be significant in bivariate analyses (we used a Wald test at a significance level of .10) into 1 model. We then deleted variables found not to be significant in the presence of the other variables, assessing the significance of each variable with a Wald test at a significance level of .05." - The problem here is that the resulting statistical significance levels don't mean what these authors seem to think that that do. The levels of significance for a regression assume a random draw. If you 23 specifications and then pick the variables that are significant, the variables that you are picking were picked in a biased manner.
It probably would have been useful of Lott to include the next sentence in the article after his quoted portion but that wouldn't make it look deceptive enough for his readers.
7) Six variables is what they finally include in their "Final Model." Leaving out variables that affect the murder rate will cause the other variables to act as a proxy for these left out variables. This gets back to my point (1).
The results section addresses this.
8) Even if all these issues were dealt with, they have completely ignored the issue of causation. Is it increased crime that results in more guns or the reverse?
They haven't ignored it. Causation is not something that this study was designed to look at, only correlation. And anyone with a scientific research background will know that causation is something that is almost impossible for an observational study to prove.
Last edited:
I’m considering a Springfield XD (I had one in the past and liked the gun) and a S&W Shield. I’ve always preferred 40 but I think I’ll go with 9mm. The price is pointing me to the S&W (I am one of those rare people who owned and liked the Sigma...but not for the range unless the trigger pull was lightened).
I have no plans of attacking anyone or killing myself. Which gun has the less potential for killing me in my sleep?
I have no plans of attacking anyone or killing myself. Which gun has the less potential for killing me in my sleep?
If you mean "more effective" because soldiers shoot it more accurately, I agree.
Why I want an AR? The Constitution says I can have one. The 2nd is not about hunting and sport shooting. Its about defending against a tyrannical government.
The AR-15 with varmint barrel is quite popular varmint rifle. Its what I shoot yotes with most of the time.
I mean a wounded enemy is better than a dead one as it takes more resources from the opponent.
Yep, the NVA/VC booby trap theory.
I don't own one, but I'm told the .223 is an excellent choice for Maine coyotes.
So, you live in N.J. and won't tell if you own an AR. The logical assumption drawn from that would be that you illegally own an AR. If not, you would just say that you do not own one. So, you are will I,g to break the law to own a rifle you are saying civilians do not need. Your argument just fell apart.
Yea, that's how we were taught. They showed us x-rays of 5.56 damage (traveling up a bone, not exiting, etc ). But the philosophy was that a severely wounded soldier took out 2 people whereas a dead one only took out one.
But my favorite guns were the M2 and the M60.
supersoldier71
Active Member
While 5.56 mm is by no means a high powered rifle round, it still carries more energy than all but the most powerful handgun rounds.
A .44 Magnum 180 grain Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) will generate about 610 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle.
A 5.56 mm JHP will more than double that at over 1400 ft/lbs, and do so while shooting farther and flatter.
Pistols are what you carry when you can't carry a rifle.
The primary fault with the current 5.56 mm rounds as issued is that the US Military is forbidden from using modern hollow-point ammunition, but this is a common shortcoming across all platforms, past, present and future. So then, the rationale is that if you may have to shoot them twice (or more! Read Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down for some interesting anecdotes about the lack of effectiveness of 5.56 mm "green tip" ammo against unarmored Somalis), it's best to have a lot of rounds at your disposal.
The current M4 is generally well-regarded among the guys who have to use it, mostly because it is a mature technology. It or its progenitors have been the primary fighting weapon of the United States for longer than any other system, and as such, we (although I retire soon) know how to keep it shooting. Also, while it remains a direct impingement weapon, that is, the burnt gasses directly act on the bolt to cycle the mechanism, which is less than ideal in certain situations and was at least one of the causes of the high-profile failures in Vietnam, it also makes for a very accurate weapon. Generally speaking, the AR-15/M16/M4 platform is more accurate that M1/M14 rifles.
The M1/M14 survives to this day as the Enhanced Battle Rifle, which is a useful weapon that hits harder than the M4, but is also heavier, and the ammo loadout is obviously reduced in comparison.
A .44 Magnum 180 grain Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) will generate about 610 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle.
A 5.56 mm JHP will more than double that at over 1400 ft/lbs, and do so while shooting farther and flatter.
Pistols are what you carry when you can't carry a rifle.
The primary fault with the current 5.56 mm rounds as issued is that the US Military is forbidden from using modern hollow-point ammunition, but this is a common shortcoming across all platforms, past, present and future. So then, the rationale is that if you may have to shoot them twice (or more! Read Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down for some interesting anecdotes about the lack of effectiveness of 5.56 mm "green tip" ammo against unarmored Somalis), it's best to have a lot of rounds at your disposal.
The current M4 is generally well-regarded among the guys who have to use it, mostly because it is a mature technology. It or its progenitors have been the primary fighting weapon of the United States for longer than any other system, and as such, we (although I retire soon) know how to keep it shooting. Also, while it remains a direct impingement weapon, that is, the burnt gasses directly act on the bolt to cycle the mechanism, which is less than ideal in certain situations and was at least one of the causes of the high-profile failures in Vietnam, it also makes for a very accurate weapon. Generally speaking, the AR-15/M16/M4 platform is more accurate that M1/M14 rifles.
The M1/M14 survives to this day as the Enhanced Battle Rifle, which is a useful weapon that hits harder than the M4, but is also heavier, and the ammo loadout is obviously reduced in comparison.
I use mine for a varmint gun. But I also carry it when I am in a rural setting as south Texas has a feral hog problem. The hog is about the biggest animal I would shoot with an AR, but three or four shots to the head will stop even a big boar hog.
An AR-15 is a .22. A .22lr has a slug diameter of .224 inches. A 5.56mm/.223 has a slug diameter of .224 inches.
A common .223/5.56mm round weighs 55 grains or about 3.6 grams.
A common .22lr round weighs about 40 grains or about 2.6 grams.
The additional powder in a .223 over a .22lr gives a higher muzzle velocity which accounts for it doing more damage.
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttttttt!
I'd use a shotgun slug & load a pump.
I meant legal firearms, but you knew that. This just proves the old saying that if guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns.
This thread is splitting off too much, talking about this study further doesn't appeal to me and the debate is futile - there are more guns in the US right now than ever and pushing gun control will only make the NRA more powerful and you still can't explain the murder rate in DC while the city has a total gun ban. Table 3 could shed some light:
The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
Gun ownership 1.129 (1.061, 1.201) .001 For each 1-SD increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 12.9%
Percentage Black 1.828 (1.536, 2.176) .001 For each 1-SD increase in proportion of black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 82.8%
explains a lot - we could ban the black population but that may be unconstitutional as well as banning firearms.
Here is your answer:
So you would draw down on a swat team? You saw what happened at WACO right? 
Yep. The 'Guvmint' is always going to have more soldiers with bigger guns than you. So what's the point?
Well, we have discovered one more thing Matt knows nothing about. Math.
2.1 million Americans in all branches of the military.
200 million Americans own 300 million firearms.
That means We the People outnumber the military by 100 to 1. Duh!
Not to mention the number of those 2.1 million who will refuse to fire on other Americans. Double Duh!
- Status