• FiskFisk33@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    notice how in the graph on wikipedia, excluding USA, the correlation is really not that strong.

    dont get me wrong, i agree with the general sentiment, but bad data weakens even the best of cases.

    image

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.

      I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.

      Before I get dog-piled, I’d like to add that I know that there are too many guns in the US, and the process to buy a firearm is surprisingly lax. I do think there is a relationship between gun ownership and the murder rates, and the fact that most school shootings don’t even make the news anymore (and if they do, it’s for less than a day) indicates that the frogs have been completely boiled at this point.

      • BenLeMan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        I get the point the comic is trying to make, but saying that more guns means more people die from guns isn’t really a “gotcha”… In places with fewer guns, fewer people are using guns to do their murderings.

        Fair point but see below…

        I’d be more interested in a graph that shows total murders per capita compared to gun ownership per capita.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

        The United States has over 4 times more murders per capita than France, for instance.

        And you really shouldn’t discount just how easy it is to kill someone with a gun. I don’t have the stats at hand right now but knife related killings (as an example) are way less likely to happen because victims have a comparatively good chance to survive a knife attack.

        There are solid reasons for keeping weapons that are designed to kill human beings out of the hands of most of us.

      • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        another way these facts get skewed: most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides

        in the US, states with the strictest gun laws do also have the lowest suicide rates, maybe because when there isn’t an easy way to quickly exit, fewer people do - and the same reasoning probably applies to homicides

        either way, there are also accidental gun deaths (kids accidentally shooting themselves or others because they’re playing with daddy’s gun, etc.) - so gun policies absolutely do save or cost lives

        • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          A gun doesn’t stop you from getting shot, it just gives you a chance to shoot back.

          Yes, I know you were being sarcastic.

          • NABDad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Having a gun probably also gives you a better chance of being shot either by suicide, accident, or making yourself seem like more of a threat.

          • village604@adultswim.fan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 hours ago

            That largely depends on if you’re their intended target.

            But anyone fetishizing being the “good guy with a gun” would just piss their pants.

            • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              7 hours ago

              If I was carrying and there was an active shooter, I sure as hell would run or hide before fighting.

              You don’t know who the active shooter actually is. Maybe the guy you saw with a gun is a plainclothes or off duty cop who is responding to the actual active shooter. Maybe there is more than one shooter, and confronting the one you see makes you a target for the one you don’t. Maybe the cops find you after shooting the active shooter, and assume you are the perpetrator.

              For clarification, I don’t carry a gun, I just used myself as an example to simplify the text.

    • Nalivai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Because it’s not a gradual response curve. It doesn’t really matter is it 10 guns per 100 people, or 15, if there is a strict gun control policy, and you can’t easily get a gun at the age of 18 in a fishing shop. The problem is ubiquity that comes when the society is saturated and there is very little regulations.

      • FiskFisk33@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        yeah I think the real world is more complicated. Like, its not just about numbers, but also how control is implemented and even culture.