Two licensed conceal/carry idiots kill each other.

[regexcellent]

Guns per 100k may be highly skewed by those collectors who have hundreds of 1911s and nothing else, or a complete run of all of the WWII service weapons, or other such things, which are never fired. Still that is amusing.

[Sava]

It would probably be helpful to look at the data smartly... for instance, developed nations versus non-developed nations... to maybe, I dunno, isolate all other factors as much as possible.

But just eyeballing, I'm seeing a lot of countries ranking with the lowest number of firearm deaths who also have the lowest amount of guns per 100k.

But please feel free to let the Tunisia's and North Korea's skew your results.

[Felch]

It would probably be helpful to look at the data smartly... for instance, developed nations versus non-developed nations... to maybe, I dunno, isolate all other factors as much as possible.

Feel free to carry your own water in this discussion. Like maybe collect the data yourself and make your own spreadsheet.

But just eyeballing, I'm seeing a lot of countries ranking with the lowest number of firearm deaths who also have the lowest amount of guns per 100k.

You think eyeballing is a better method than running the numbers and looking for a correlation? Or are you sneakily moving the goal posts from gun murders to gun deaths, thereby including all the suicides. If suicide is your problem, then you're also going to need to ban trains, bridges, rope, household cleaners, and a host of other dangerous things.

But please feel free to let the Tunisia's and North Korea's skew your results.

Seriously, Burger King? Neither of those countries were on my list.

[Sava]

Both of those countries were in the data you used.

Plus, I don't need to run the numbers. Others have. It's settled. It's fact. I'm not about to do your own research for you. Google is your friend. If you don't feel like using him, that's fine. But it's also not my problem.

Also, if suicide by gun is such a high number that it skews your results, perhaps it isn't something to be ignored.

[Sava]

moving the goal posts

On a side note, this is a retarded phrase that needs to go away. It's political-speak. No intelligent person would ever use it.

[Felch]

Both of those countries were in the data you used.

No, they were not. The spreadsheet is there for you to see. Since Tunisia and North Korea were not in the list of gun murders on Wikipedia, I omitted them from the spreadsheet.

Plus, I don't need to run the numbers. Others have. It's settled. It's fact.

If it's settled fact, why isn't it supported by reality?

I'm not about to do your own research for you. Google is your friend. If you don't feel like using him, that's fine. But it's also not my problem.

I've already done my research for me. Then I went and did your research for you. If you don't like the research I've done for you, maybe you should do your own research for you.

Also, if suicide by gun is such a high number that it skews your results, perhaps it isn't something to be ignored.

Of course it's something to be ignored. Suicide is a personal matter, murder is a community matter. Pretending like murder and suicide are equivalent is retarded. It's appropriate for the government to protect us from other people, but protecting us from ourselves would require the law to treat us all like dependents instead of responsible adults.

On a side note, this is a retarded phrase that needs to go away. It's political-speak. No intelligent person would ever use it.

If you don't want to be called out for changing the subject, then don't change the subject. I've got no sympathy for whiny *****es who can't hold their own in a discussion.

[Sava]

If it's settled fact, why isn't it supported by reality?

It is. You just seem to have a problem understanding it.

You're just playing the same tired old game that all gun nuts do. You establish ridiculously rigid criteria and cherry pick data to support your twisted views. Anything that doesn't fit? Well, that's "moving the goal posts".

You are so retarded, I'm amazed you are able to carry about basic human functions. Or maybe you don't. You could be a slobbering vegetable using some sort of eye motion device to type.

[Felch]

You establish ridiculously rigid criteria

How is expecting gun murders and gun ownership to be positively correlated "ridiculously rigid?"

and cherry pick data to support your twisted views.

I used every country listed on this page. No cherry picking here. Also no North Korea or Tunisia, but you're so bent on lying your way through this discussion that you'll never admit to that.

[regexcellent]

Sava's lost when he's not repeating retarded 10-foot strawmen like THANKS OBAMA.

[Felch]

Sava's lost when he's not repeating retarded 10-foot strawmen like THANKS OBAMA.

You're retarded. It's a settled fact, and everybody knows it. Just use Google. Or maybe you can't because you're a big fat meanie and you're stupid, and you don't know anything.

[N35t0r]

Correlating gun ownership to gun deaths without correcting for other factors that influence either variable is next to meaningless, especually with such a weak correaltion.

Of course it's something to be ignored. Suicide is a personal matter, murder is a community matter. Pretending like murder and suicide are equivalent is retarded.

If non-gun suicide attempts have a higher failure risk than gun suicide attempts, and a significant precentage of those who fail do not end up commiting suicide, then it might still be a good idea to limit the access of guns for such people.

It's appropriate for the government to protect us from other people, but protecting us from ourselves would require the law to treat us all like dependents instead of responsible adults.

I'd be willing to bet that a significant percentage of gun suicides are performed with guns owned by other people.