[twinklesweep]

I recently came across a simple, quickly prepared study by Mark Reid whose goal was just to look at the relationship between gun deaths and gun ownership. It started with this premise (from the study):

"One statistic from an April 2012 New Yorker article caught my attention: The United States is the country with the highest rate of civilian gun ownership in the world. (The second highest is Yemen, where the rate is nevertheless only half that of the U.S.) No civilian population is more powerfully armed."

One can research any subject to death (no pun intended); I thought that this was a quick and easily understandable overview that can be found on this website. Note that the title I am giving his thread is the title of his brief study:

Gun Deaths vs. Gun Ownership ? Inductio Ex Machina ? Mark Reid

The writer explained that he prepared this quickly, based on simple and easily obtainable references, and made these comments, among others:

"[M]y intention was not to do a definitive study but rather show how a readily accessible source (i.e., Wikipedia) can be used to quickly get an overview of a topic." I might add that he seemed to be disparaging about Wikipedia in general.

With reference to the plots he uses in his article, "I have not attempted to use these plots to draw any kind of conclusion about the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths."

The link to the study appeared in an article in Business Insider by Walter Hickey:

America's Gun Problem In One Chart - Business Insider

[graciegirl]

The farmers and the cowmen can't be friends.

We do LOVE to argue.

Carry on. I woke up with a headache.

[twinklesweep]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The farmers and the cowmen can't be friends.

We do LOVE to argue.

Carry on. I woke up with a headache.

Huh?

I'm impressed that I literally just posted this and it's been read through already. I just don't see the connection between the study and the posted comment. What argument? There are statistics in this study, but I don't see an argument.

Sorry about your headache; I hope you feel better soon.

[billethkid]

one has to be very attentive to results based on percentages.

The larger the population the more opportunity to highlight almost anything/any subject.

One needs to know the objective of the study, assumptions made, how/where the data was gathered, how consolidated and a statement as to the demographics of the area being studied.

In too many cases some studies extrapolate data and present it as a general representation......when it may not be.

Studies/polls/statistics can prove ANYTHING!!!!

btk

[Golfingnut]

10 of 100 is 10%

100 of 1000 is 10%

Percentages make more sense than make believe talking points devised to confuse.

[tomjbud]

Too many nuts + too many guns = too many nuts with guns.

[Bogie Shooter]

Tortured numbers will say anything..........................

[buggyone]

Number of Murders by Firearms in the US, 2010: 8,775

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders based on population size)

Hey, the good old USA can do that equivalent 290 murders by firearms in one city.

Of course, the UK did have 2 murders by crossbow and the US data for crossbow murders was not available.