Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Vereeniging
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,959

    Default Gun voilence in America

    From the Washington Post.

    A distinct pattern emerged: In Democratic regions of the country, which tend to be cities, people are more likely to be murdered with a gun than they are to shoot themselves to death. In regions of the country won by Republicans, which tend to be rural areas and small towns, the opposite is true — people are more likely to shoot themselves to death than they are to be murdered with a gun.

    This pattern, explored in more detail in the graphic below, could partially explain differing partisan views on the issue of gun control, experts say, though they added more analysis would be necessary to prove a direct link. In the most Democratic regions, gun violence is more often committed against another, crimes that probably generate more news coverage and fear. In the most Republican areas, it is more often committed against oneself, suicides that may not attract as much attention.

    As the below charts show, Democratic areas (measured by the party that controls the congressional district) are far more likely to experience almost all forms of malicious gun violence than Republican areas. These charts exclude suicides, for which data are not available on a congressional district basis, so it only breaks down the fraction of gun violence that is accidental or confrontational.
    In almost all cases, guns kill or injure more children, teens and people in Democratic districts. Mass shootings, which vary widely in number depending how restrictive your definition is, occur more often in Democratic districts.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8e55a3ab4340

  2. #2
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Age
    32
    Posts
    3,176

    Default Re: Gun voilence in America

    I hate the “more likely” way of presenting evidence. That is what intellectually dishonest people do to try and make insignificant data seem relevant. Like the twice as likely to have a downs child after 40 well there was a 0.1% chance before 40 now a 0,2% chance after 40 statistically insignificant. Also comparing suicides with crime rates as if they are comparable. “More likely” means absolutely squat without expressing the innitial likelyhood. Anyways rant over.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •