Nashville Christian School massacre

[SeattleGriz]

I'm going to go with mental illness and a lack of understanding the consequences of medications prescribed.

For example, I absolutely love it when the Psychiatrist wants to prescribe my autistic son a new medication and I ask the one question he is never able to answer, and he is a former Chemist as well:

What is the mechanism of action, or, how does it work?

If you don't understand that, good luck understanding unintended consequences. Most of the drugs are repurposed and originally approved for a different purpose.

Is the medical community prescribing medications to alleviate gender dysphoria they don't fully understand?

Sure and it’s important to be your own advocate but it’s not necessarily a conspiracy or greed or laziness that drives this. I’m on gabapentin which is an old drug originally used for seizures. Turns out that it’s also good for neuropathy which I take it for.

Also, many doctors have less expertise than you think in drugs and rely heavily on pharmacists for advice.

I don't think it's greed or laziness, just a propensity to overprescribe in the area of, "let's see if this works". I find this a little troubling, as the drugs did not go through their initial trials being tested on kids, but adults.

With all that being said, I don't know what, if any, drugs are prescribed for gender dysphoria, so it may be a moot point.

[houndawg]

Yes. Targeted by trans, straits, binaries etc.

There aren’t hordes of straights or trans but one school shooting is enough. The gender identity of this murderer is a part of the story I suppose but it ain’t the feature you’re making it out to be.

Again. WTF is ‘binaries’?

And "woke"?

[houndawg]

"Targeted"? Kinda like kids in a school being targeted by a trans gunman rampaging around shooting up the place?

If there are hordes of straights running around targeting defenseless trans folx out there, please let us know.

Yes. Targeted by trans, straits, binaries etc.

There aren’t hordes of straights or trans but one school shooting is enough. The gender identity of this murderer is a part of the story I suppose but it ain’t the feature you’re making it out to be.

Its part of the story because its such an outlier - perps in these kind of shootings are mearly always white males.

I think what it will take to put NRA-level pressure on our so-called leaders is pictures of the classrooms.

[kalm]

Yes. Targeted by trans, straits, binaries etc.

There aren’t hordes of straights or trans but one school shooting is enough. The gender identity of this murderer is a part of the story I suppose but it ain’t the feature you’re making it out to be.

Its part of the story because its such an outlier - perps in these kind of shootings are mearly always nearly always white males.

I think what it will take to put NRA-level pressure on our so-called leaders is pictures of the classrooms.

[Winterborn]

How the shooter identified only has in implication from a medication/mental standpoint. It may or it may not have had a bearing but at this time we do not know and based on the surrounding story on the trans topic, I highly doubt the needed questions will be asked much less answered.

[houndawg]

How the shooter identified only has in implication from a medication/mental standpoint. It may or it may not have had a bearing but at this time we do not know and based on the surrounding story on the trans topic, I highly doubt the needed questions will be asked much less answered.

Like wtf is up with legislating about drag shows after kids are slaughtered in their classrooms?

[Baldy]

How the shooter identified only has in implication from a medication/mental standpoint. It may or it may not have had a bearing but at this time we do not know and based on the surrounding story on the trans topic, I highly doubt the needed questions will be asked much less answered.

Like wtf is up with legislating about drag shows after kids are slaughtered in their classrooms?

So let the drag queens perform for the kiddies or the trannies will shoot up their schools?

[UNI88]

Like wtf is up with legislating about drag shows after kids are slaughtered in their classrooms?

So let the drag queens perform for the kiddies or the trannies will shoot up their schools?

Do we apply similar logic to other shootings?

[houndawg]

Like wtf is up with legislating about drag shows after kids are slaughtered in their classrooms?

So let the drag queens perform for the kiddies or the trannies will shoot up their schools?

wut?

send me some of what you're smoking

[JohnStOnge]

I do not expect anybody to read beyond the second paragraph. Everything after that is just posted because I feel obligated to document what I wrote there and it takes a lot of writing to do that.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this. The Nashville thing and the gun control debate prompted me to have some fun looking at the question of whether, as a public health matter, gun prevalence results in more or less violent death. The answer appears to be that it results in more violent death. At least that is what the associations strongly suggest. When you look at gun prevalence in terms of per capita guns by State or gun ownership rate by State, it takes a little to see that more guns tends to be associated with higher overall homicide rate (not just gun homicide rate). But you can see it. Meanwhile, there is NO question about overall suicide rate. No matter how you look at it, there are very strong and highly significant associations between State by State gun prevalence and State by State overall suicide rate. And there are a lot more suicides than there are homicides (in 2021, it was 47,646 vs. 26,031). It's observational data association. But any reasonable person would interpret the data as indicating that more guns means more violent, premature death.

Now here is the documentation nobody will read:

This weekend I looked at readily available information to try to get an idea as to whether more guns means more or less violent death. I came away feeling pretty certain it means more violent death. But presenting things is a challenge. I'll try.

The bottom line is this: More guns means more violent death. Guns do not, on average, make people safer. They put them in more danger. If you believe in gun ownership, that is fine. I do. But do not do so on the basis of thinking that more guns in the hands of the people makes people, on average, safer. It is likely that the opposite is the case.

NOTE: I looked at %Black population because it is well known that homicide is a problem in Black communities. Also, suicide is actually LESS of a problem in Black communities.

I looked at state by state gun ownership rates reported at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../g ... p-by-state and state by state per capita registered gun rates reported at https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/ as indicators of gun prevalence. I considered state by state percent Black population as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../b ... ulation-by... and percent in poverty as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../p ... e-by-state as possible confounding factors. And I looked at state by state homicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../homicide_mortality/homicide.htm as well as state by state suicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../sosmap/suicide- ... uicide.htm.

The years may not exactly match up. The homicide and suicide rates are those reported by CDC for 2020 and I am not sure of the years for which the gun ownership rate, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty are reported. But I am going with what I think is the reasonable assumption that that relative gun ownership rates, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty do not change that much from year to year.

My initial cut was to look at the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients indicated in the image below. What they suggest is that there is very little doubt that more guns mean more suicide. Whether one uses Pearson or Spearman or whether one uses gun ownership rate or per capita guns, there is always a highly significant correlation such that States with higher gun prevalence tend to have higher suicide rates.

It's not quite as clear with homicide rates. The per capita gun rate vs. homicide coefficient is not anywhere close to significant at any reasonable level of confidence. Nevertheless, there are suggestions. The Pearson coefficient for gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate as well as the Spearman coefficients for per capita gun rate vs. homicide rate and gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate are significant at >90 percent confidence. Not at the >=95 percent confidence level normally used by convention. But still suggestive.

However, when I did ordinary least squares regression to ''control'' for %Black population and % in Poverty (using ranks of data instead of the raw data in the cases of the Spearman situations), gun ownership rate and/or per capita gun rate became significant at >98 percent confidence in every case.

It appears to be a lock that more guns mean more suicides. And it appears to be very likely that more guns mean more homicides. From a public health standpoint, it seems virtually certain that more guns is not good. Not at all.

[BDKJMU]

I do not expect anybody to read beyond the second paragraph. Everything after that is just posted because I feel obligated to document what I wrote there and it takes a lot of writing to do that.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this. The Nashville thing and the gun control debate prompted me to have some fun looking at the question of whether, as a public health matter, gun prevalence results in more or less violent death. The answer appears to be that it results in more violent death. At least that is what the associations strongly suggest. When you look at gun prevalence in terms of per capita guns by State or gun ownership rate by State, it takes a little to see that more guns tends to be associated with higher overall homicide rate (not just gun homicide rate). But you can see it. Meanwhile, there is NO question about overall suicide rate. No matter how you look at it, there are very strong and highly significant associations between State by State gun prevalence and State by State overall suicide rate. And there are a lot more suicides than there are homicides (in 2021, it was 47,646 vs. 26,031). It's observational data association. But any reasonable person would interpret the data as indicating that more guns means more violent, premature death.

Now here is the documentation nobody will read:

This weekend I looked at readily available information to try to get an idea as to whether more guns means more or less violent death. I came away feeling pretty certain it means more violent death. But presenting things is a challenge. I'll try.

The bottom line is this: More guns means more violent death. Guns do not, on average, make people safer. They put them in more danger. If you believe in gun ownership, that is fine. I do. But do not do so on the basis of thinking that more guns in the hands of the people makes people, on average, safer. It is likely that the opposite is the case.

NOTE: I looked at %Black population because it is well known that homicide is a problem in Black communities. Also, suicide is actually LESS of a problem in Black communities.

I looked at state by state gun ownership rates reported at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../g ... p-by-state and state by state per capita registered gun rates reported at https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/ as indicators of gun prevalence. I considered state by state percent Black population as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../b ... ulation-by... and percent in poverty as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../p ... e-by-state as possible confounding factors. And I looked at state by state homicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../homicide_mortality/homicide.htm as well as state by state suicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../sosmap/suicide- ... uicide.htm.

The years may not exactly match up. The homicide and suicide rates are those reported by CDC for 2020 and I am not sure of the years for which the gun ownership rate, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty are reported. But I am going with what I think is the reasonable assumption that that relative gun ownership rates, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty do not change that much from year to year.

My initial cut was to look at the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients indicated in the image below. What they suggest is that there is very little doubt that more guns mean more suicide. Whether one uses Pearson or Spearman or whether one uses gun ownership rate or per capita guns, there is always a highly significant correlation such that States with higher gun prevalence tend to have higher suicide rates.

It's not quite as clear with homicide rates. The per capita gun rate vs. homicide coefficient is not anywhere close to significant at any reasonable level of confidence. Nevertheless, there are suggestions. The Pearson coefficient for gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate as well as the Spearman coefficients for per capita gun rate vs. homicide rate and gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate are significant at >90 percent confidence. Not at the >=95 percent confidence level normally used by convention. But still suggestive.

However, when I did ordinary least squares regression to ''control'' for %Black population and % in Poverty (using ranks of data instead of the raw data in the cases of the Spearman situations), gun ownership rate and/or per capita gun rate became significant at >98 percent confidence in every case.

It appears to be a lock that more guns mean more suicides. And it appears to be very likely that more guns mean more homicides. From a public health standpoint, it seems virtually certain that more guns is not good. Not at all.

[houndawg]

I do not expect anybody to read beyond the second paragraph. Everything after that is just posted because I feel obligated to document what I wrote there and it takes a lot of writing to do that.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this. The Nashville thing and the gun control debate prompted me to have some fun looking at the question of whether, as a public health matter, gun prevalence results in more or less violent death. The answer appears to be that it results in more violent death. At least that is what the associations strongly suggest. When you look at gun prevalence in terms of per capita guns by State or gun ownership rate by State, it takes a little to see that more guns tends to be associated with higher overall homicide rate (not just gun homicide rate). But you can see it. Meanwhile, there is NO question about overall suicide rate. No matter how you look at it, there are very strong and highly significant associations between State by State gun prevalence and State by State overall suicide rate. And there are a lot more suicides than there are homicides (in 2021, it was 47,646 vs. 26,031). It's observational data association. But any reasonable person would interpret the data as indicating that more guns means more violent, premature death.

Now here is the documentation nobody will read:

This weekend I looked at readily available information to try to get an idea as to whether more guns means more or less violent death. I came away feeling pretty certain it means more violent death. But presenting things is a challenge. I'll try.

The bottom line is this: More guns means more violent death. Guns do not, on average, make people safer. They put them in more danger. If you believe in gun ownership, that is fine. I do. But do not do so on the basis of thinking that more guns in the hands of the people makes people, on average, safer. It is likely that the opposite is the case.

NOTE: I looked at %Black population because it is well known that homicide is a problem in Black communities. Also, suicide is actually LESS of a problem in Black communities.

I looked at state by state gun ownership rates reported at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../g ... p-by-state and state by state per capita registered gun rates reported at https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/ as indicators of gun prevalence. I considered state by state percent Black population as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../b ... ulation-by... and percent in poverty as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../p ... e-by-state as possible confounding factors. And I looked at state by state homicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../homicide_mortality/homicide.htm as well as state by state suicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../sosmap/suicide- ... uicide.htm.

The years may not exactly match up. The homicide and suicide rates are those reported by CDC for 2020 and I am not sure of the years for which the gun ownership rate, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty are reported. But I am going with what I think is the reasonable assumption that that relative gun ownership rates, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty do not change that much from year to year.

My initial cut was to look at the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients indicated in the image below. What they suggest is that there is very little doubt that more guns mean more suicide. Whether one uses Pearson or Spearman or whether one uses gun ownership rate or per capita guns, there is always a highly significant correlation such that States with higher gun prevalence tend to have higher suicide rates.

It's not quite as clear with homicide rates. The per capita gun rate vs. homicide coefficient is not anywhere close to significant at any reasonable level of confidence. Nevertheless, there are suggestions. The Pearson coefficient for gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate as well as the Spearman coefficients for per capita gun rate vs. homicide rate and gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate are significant at >90 percent confidence. Not at the >=95 percent confidence level normally used by convention. But still suggestive.

However, when I did ordinary least squares regression to ''control'' for %Black population and % in Poverty (using ranks of data instead of the raw data in the cases of the Spearman situations), gun ownership rate and/or per capita gun rate became significant at >98 percent confidence in every case.

It appears to be a lock that more guns mean more suicides. And it appears to be very likely that more guns mean more homicides. From a public health standpoint, it seems virtually certain that more guns is not good. Not at all.

...didn't read it or couldn't understand it?

[BDKJMU]

I do not expect anybody to read beyond the second paragraph. Everything after that is just posted because I feel obligated to document what I wrote there and it takes a lot of writing to do that.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this. The Nashville thing and the gun control debate prompted me to have some fun looking at the question of whether, as a public health matter, gun prevalence results in more or less violent death. The answer appears to be that it results in more violent death. At least that is what the associations strongly suggest. When you look at gun prevalence in terms of per capita guns by State or gun ownership rate by State, it takes a little to see that more guns tends to be associated with higher overall homicide rate (not just gun homicide rate). But you can see it. Meanwhile, there is NO question about overall suicide rate. No matter how you look at it, there are very strong and highly significant associations between State by State gun prevalence and State by State overall suicide rate. And there are a lot more suicides than there are homicides (in 2021, it was 47,646 vs. 26,031). It's observational data association. But any reasonable person would interpret the data as indicating that more guns means more violent, premature death.

Now here is the documentation nobody will read:

This weekend I looked at readily available information to try to get an idea as to whether more guns means more or less violent death. I came away feeling pretty certain it means more violent death. But presenting things is a challenge. I'll try.

The bottom line is this: More guns means more violent death. Guns do not, on average, make people safer. They put them in more danger. If you believe in gun ownership, that is fine. I do. But do not do so on the basis of thinking that more guns in the hands of the people makes people, on average, safer. It is likely that the opposite is the case.

NOTE: I looked at %Black population because it is well known that homicide is a problem in Black communities. Also, suicide is actually LESS of a problem in Black communities.

I looked at state by state gun ownership rates reported at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../g ... p-by-state and state by state per capita registered gun rates reported at https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/ as indicators of gun prevalence. I considered state by state percent Black population as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../b ... ulation-by... and percent in poverty as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../p ... e-by-state as possible confounding factors. And I looked at state by state homicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../homicide_mortality/homicide.htm as well as state by state suicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../sosmap/suicide- ... uicide.htm.

The years may not exactly match up. The homicide and suicide rates are those reported by CDC for 2020 and I am not sure of the years for which the gun ownership rate, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty are reported. But I am going with what I think is the reasonable assumption that that relative gun ownership rates, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty do not change that much from year to year.

My initial cut was to look at the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients indicated in the image below. What they suggest is that there is very little doubt that more guns mean more suicide. Whether one uses Pearson or Spearman or whether one uses gun ownership rate or per capita guns, there is always a highly significant correlation such that States with higher gun prevalence tend to have higher suicide rates.

It's not quite as clear with homicide rates. The per capita gun rate vs. homicide coefficient is not anywhere close to significant at any reasonable level of confidence. Nevertheless, there are suggestions. The Pearson coefficient for gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate as well as the Spearman coefficients for per capita gun rate vs. homicide rate and gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate are significant at >90 percent confidence. Not at the >=95 percent confidence level normally used by convention. But still suggestive.

However, when I did ordinary least squares regression to ''control'' for %Black population and % in Poverty (using ranks of data instead of the raw data in the cases of the Spearman situations), gun ownership rate and/or per capita gun rate became significant at >98 percent confidence in every case.

It appears to be a lock that more guns mean more suicides. And it appears to be very likely that more guns mean more homicides. From a public health standpoint, it seems virtually certain that more guns is not good. Not at all.

[kalm]

I do not expect anybody to read beyond the second paragraph. Everything after that is just posted because I feel obligated to document what I wrote there and it takes a lot of writing to do that.

This seems like as good a place as any to post this. The Nashville thing and the gun control debate prompted me to have some fun looking at the question of whether, as a public health matter, gun prevalence results in more or less violent death. The answer appears to be that it results in more violent death. At least that is what the associations strongly suggest. When you look at gun prevalence in terms of per capita guns by State or gun ownership rate by State, it takes a little to see that more guns tends to be associated with higher overall homicide rate (not just gun homicide rate). But you can see it. Meanwhile, there is NO question about overall suicide rate. No matter how you look at it, there are very strong and highly significant associations between State by State gun prevalence and State by State overall suicide rate. And there are a lot more suicides than there are homicides (in 2021, it was 47,646 vs. 26,031). It's observational data association. But any reasonable person would interpret the data as indicating that more guns means more violent, premature death.

Now here is the documentation nobody will read:

This weekend I looked at readily available information to try to get an idea as to whether more guns means more or less violent death. I came away feeling pretty certain it means more violent death. But presenting things is a challenge. I'll try.

The bottom line is this: More guns means more violent death. Guns do not, on average, make people safer. They put them in more danger. If you believe in gun ownership, that is fine. I do. But do not do so on the basis of thinking that more guns in the hands of the people makes people, on average, safer. It is likely that the opposite is the case.

NOTE: I looked at %Black population because it is well known that homicide is a problem in Black communities. Also, suicide is actually LESS of a problem in Black communities.

I looked at state by state gun ownership rates reported at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../g ... p-by-state and state by state per capita registered gun rates reported at https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/ as indicators of gun prevalence. I considered state by state percent Black population as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../b ... ulation-by... and percent in poverty as indicated at https://worldpopulationreview.com/.../p ... e-by-state as possible confounding factors. And I looked at state by state homicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../homicide_mortality/homicide.htm as well as state by state suicide rates as indicated at https://www.cdc.gov/.../sosmap/suicide- ... uicide.htm.

The years may not exactly match up. The homicide and suicide rates are those reported by CDC for 2020 and I am not sure of the years for which the gun ownership rate, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty are reported. But I am going with what I think is the reasonable assumption that that relative gun ownership rates, per capita guns, percent Black population, and percent in poverty do not change that much from year to year.

My initial cut was to look at the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients indicated in the image below. What they suggest is that there is very little doubt that more guns mean more suicide. Whether one uses Pearson or Spearman or whether one uses gun ownership rate or per capita guns, there is always a highly significant correlation such that States with higher gun prevalence tend to have higher suicide rates.

It's not quite as clear with homicide rates. The per capita gun rate vs. homicide coefficient is not anywhere close to significant at any reasonable level of confidence. Nevertheless, there are suggestions. The Pearson coefficient for gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate as well as the Spearman coefficients for per capita gun rate vs. homicide rate and gun ownership rate vs. homicide rate are significant at >90 percent confidence. Not at the >=95 percent confidence level normally used by convention. But still suggestive.

However, when I did ordinary least squares regression to ''control'' for %Black population and % in Poverty (using ranks of data instead of the raw data in the cases of the Spearman situations), gun ownership rate and/or per capita gun rate became significant at >98 percent confidence in every case.

It appears to be a lock that more guns mean more suicides. And it appears to be very likely that more guns mean more homicides. From a public health standpoint, it seems virtually certain that more guns is not good. Not at all.

Sounds like you got around to reading it after all.

[BDKJMU]

Sounds like you got around to reading it after all.

I did the 10 second skim..

[BDKJMU]

Last month Tenn House passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan school safety bill 95-4:

The bill would require public schools to keep exterior doors locked when students are present, with the school being subjected to penalties for repeat violations. It would also require public schools to conduct yearly incident command and bus safety drills in addition to armed intruder drills, with newly constructed public schools required to install locks on classroom doors and secure entryways.

The measure also requires school districts in the state to implement threat assessment teams and provide law enforcement agencies in the state with access to its security systems and safety plans, with private security guards undergoing yearly active shooter training.

Under the measure, Tennessee private schools would be required to lock exterior doors, create emergency preparedness plans and conduct yearly drills.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tennes ... an-support
3 of the 4 democrats to vote against it- the 3 transurrectionists..

[JohnStOnge]

Sounds like you got around to reading it after all.

I did the 10 second skim..

As I said, the only reason i included all the details of the analysis is that I think if I am going to say the data indicate that more guns state by state is associated with more death, I need to go ahead and provide the documentation. The important point is that it is pretty clear that states with higher per capita gun rates and/or higher gun ownership rates tend to have more people die of suicide and homicide.

One thing to note is that i am not talking about gun homicides and gun suicides. I am talking about all homicides and suicides. I think it is important to look at that because one might argue that, if you took guns out of the picture, people would find other tools to commit homicides and suicides so that you wouldn't reduce those things. The results i got suggest that's not the case. The results I got suggest that access to guns as effective tools results in more homicide and more suicide. Doesn't infer it in the strict sense because the data are observational. But the results are consistent with believing that, if you are looking at it as a public health matter on a population level, reducing gun prevalence would be a positive thing to do.

[Winterborn]

I did the 10 second skim..

As I said, the only reason i included all the details of the analysis is that I think if I am going to say the data indicate that more guns state by state is associated with more death, I need to go ahead and provide the documentation. The important point is that it is pretty clear that states with higher per capita gun rates and/or higher gun ownership rates tend to have more people die of suicide and homicide.

One thing to note is that i am not talking about gun homicides and gun suicides. I am talking about all homicides and suicides. I think it is important to look at that because one might argue that, if you took guns out of the picture, people would find other tools to commit homicides and suicides so that you wouldn't reduce those things. The results i got suggest that's not the case. The results I got suggest that access to guns as effective tools results in more homicide and more suicide. Doesn't infer it in the strict sense because the data are observational. But the results are consistent with believing that, if you are looking at it as a public health matter on a population level, reducing gun prevalence would be a positive thing to do.

So let me get this straight. You wanted to find out the answer if more guns, on a state by state basis, would increase the homicide/suicide rate and decided to look at all homicides/suicides, committed by any means, and correlate that back to gun ownership.

I mean you can certainly argue that premise. I personally wouldn't but then again I remember a lesson by my stats teacher that correlation is not causation.

[Winterborn]

Sounds like you got around to reading it after all.

I did the 10 second skim..

I gave it abut 2 minutes, mainly because I was a bit shocked and wanted to make sure I was understating his point.

[JohnStOnge]

As I said, the only reason i included all the details of the analysis is that I think if I am going to say the data indicate that more guns state by state is associated with more death, I need to go ahead and provide the documentation. The important point is that it is pretty clear that states with higher per capita gun rates and/or higher gun ownership rates tend to have more people die of suicide and homicide.

One thing to note is that i am not talking about gun homicides and gun suicides. I am talking about all homicides and suicides. I think it is important to look at that because one might argue that, if you took guns out of the picture, people would find other tools to commit homicides and suicides so that you wouldn't reduce those things. The results i got suggest that's not the case. The results I got suggest that access to guns as effective tools results in more homicide and more suicide. Doesn't infer it in the strict sense because the data are observational. But the results are consistent with believing that, if you are looking at it as a public health matter on a population level, reducing gun prevalence would be a positive thing to do.

So let me get this straight. You wanted to find out the answer if more guns, on a state by state basis, would increase the homicide/suicide rate and decided to look at all homicides/suicides, committed by any means, and correlate that back to gun ownership.

I mean you can certainly argue that premise. I personally wouldn't but then again I remember a lesson by my stats teacher that correlation is not causation.

There have been a lot of analyses showing that more guns is associated with more gun homicides and more overall gun deaths. The reason i wanted to look at total homicides and suicides is that one could ask if someone would just use other tools if guns were not around.

Correlation is not necessarily causation. For example: There is almost certainly a negative correlation between hair length and height among all adults in the united states whereby people with longer hair tend to be shorter. But the reason it's almost certainly there is that women tend to have longer hair than men do. Long hair does not cause people to be shorter.

At the same time, causation DOES mean correlation. And there are all sorts of things we do because we see correlation and reasonably conclude that there is causation. Cigarette smoking causing cancer is an example. There is no way we could ever conduct a controlled experiment to show that cigarette smoking causes cancer in humans. We go with the observational data.

The main thing is that there is argument over whether people having guns makes them safer or not. The data are more consistent with the ''not'' side. Not just something like what I did. There are a number of studies over many years suggesting that having a gun in the household is more likely to result in something bad happening than something good. Google ''Effect of gun in household'' and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The associations suggest that, as a general matter, guns in the hands of civilians do not make people safer. They suggest that the opposite is the case.

[Winterborn]

So let me get this straight. You wanted to find out the answer if more guns, on a state by state basis, would increase the homicide/suicide rate and decided to look at all homicides/suicides, committed by any means, and correlate that back to gun ownership.

I mean you can certainly argue that premise. I personally wouldn't but then again I remember a lesson by my stats teacher that correlation is not causation.

There have been a lot of analyses showing that more guns is associated with more gun homicides and more overall gun deaths. The reason i wanted to look at total homicides and suicides is that one could ask if someone would just use other tools if guns were not around.

Correlation is not necessarily causation. For example: There is almost certainly a negative correlation between hair length and height among all adults in the united states whereby people with longer hair tend to be shorter. But the reason it's almost certainly there is that women tend to have longer hair than men do. Long hair does not cause people to be shorter.

At the same time, causation DOES mean correlation. And there are all sorts of things we do because we see correlation and reasonably conclude that there is causation. Cigarette smoking causing cancer is an example. There is no way we could ever conduct a controlled experiment to show that cigarette smoking causes cancer in humans. We go with the observational data.

The main thing is that there is argument over whether people having guns makes them safer or not. The data are more consistent with the ''not'' side. Not just something like what I did. There are a number of studies over many years suggesting that having a gun in the household is more likely to result in something bad happening than something good. Google ''Effect of gun in household'' and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The associations suggest that, as a general matter, guns in the hands of civilians do not make people safer. They suggest that the opposite is the case.

Ironically enough you and Rep Jamaal Bowman were wondering very similar questions, Does increased gun ownership mean a corresponding increase in gun homicides. Also interesting enough the Department of Justice released a report last year that contradicts your findings (at least in the homicides and gun violence part).

So readers of these posts are left with a choice. Take the word of the DOJ or the word of a random internet person with a proven axe to grind against any topics that maybe conservative in nature.

The only reason I replied at all was because I was bored and found the way you structured your premise very odd for the results you were trying to obtain.

[houndawg]

There have been a lot of analyses showing that more guns is associated with more gun homicides and more overall gun deaths. The reason i wanted to look at total homicides and suicides is that one could ask if someone would just use other tools if guns were not around.

Correlation is not necessarily causation. For example: There is almost certainly a negative correlation between hair length and height among all adults in the united states whereby people with longer hair tend to be shorter. But the reason it's almost certainly there is that women tend to have longer hair than men do. Long hair does not cause people to be shorter.

At the same time, causation DOES mean correlation. And there are all sorts of things we do because we see correlation and reasonably conclude that there is causation. Cigarette smoking causing cancer is an example. There is no way we could ever conduct a controlled experiment to show that cigarette smoking causes cancer in humans. We go with the observational data.

The main thing is that there is argument over whether people having guns makes them safer or not. The data are more consistent with the ''not'' side. Not just something like what I did. There are a number of studies over many years suggesting that having a gun in the household is more likely to result in something bad happening than something good. Google ''Effect of gun in household'' and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The associations suggest that, as a general matter, guns in the hands of civilians do not make people safer. They suggest that the opposite is the case.

Ironically enough you and Rep Jamaal Bowman were wondering very similar questions, Does increased gun ownership mean a corresponding increase in gun homicides. Also interesting enough the Department of Justice released a report last year that contradicts your findings (at least in the homicides and gun violence part).

So readers of these posts are left with a choice. Take the word of the DOJ or the word of a random internet person with a proven axe to grind against any topics that maybe conservative in nature.

The only reason I replied at all was because I was bored and found the way you structured your premise very odd for the results you were trying to obtain.

If they really meant bidniz they'd leak photos of the classrooms after they've being hosed down with an AR.