Guns

[Mike Hearn]

Can someone from Switzerland substantiate that most males of military service age are required to keep an automatic military "assault rifle" in their houses? Even the Americans don't allow former soldiers to do that!

Why don't we hear about more Swiss mass murders, if the availability of high-capacity guns, and "assault weapons" is really their cause?

I live in Switzerland.

Yes, men have government issued assault rifles. They are not fully automatic after your military service ends (they get sent back and de-automatized). They're locked up unless you're on active service. Also there used to be a small amount of ammo in peoples houses, but it was also locked and checked from time to time to ensure it's not been used. After 2007 the ammo was all recalled, so men have guns but nothing to shoot with. If you want to shoot, you can take the gun to a shooting range which will sell you ammo, but you aren't allowed to take it off site.

The original point of having an armed populace in Switzerland was defense of the realm. There is no expectation of an armed uprising against the government, which at any rate is very democratic, the Swiss are famous for their referendums and highly decentralized governmental structure.

So the reason you don't hear much about massacres there is the "gun culture" is really very different. There's no widespread belief that an armed populace makes people safer and it's much harder to get carry permits as a result.

More in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[1714155748]

1714155748

[myrkul]

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.

You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?

PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.

[nimda]

Hmm... give me a few minutes and I'll give you the correlation coefficient of that data set.

[Taz]

You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?

PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.

Dude! Go do that baby thing!
Make sure to name him/her after your favourite automatic

[nimda]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

[grantbdev]

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

[cryptoanarchist]

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Ignored for being stupid.

[grantbdev]

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Ignored for being stupid.

I apologize for being stupid.
I am against gun control, I'm just trying to be realistic here that it is a pretty asymmetrical balance of power. Weren't tanks sent in at Waco?

[vampire]

You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?

PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.

Of course not. It isn't an argument for gun control. I don't want people waving guns in front of my face, but hey - that's pretty impossible in NYC. In US, I can choose where I live.

[nimda]

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Yeah, that worked well in the American revolution for the British, and it worked well in Afghanistan and Iraq for the Americans. The former is the very reason for the Second Amendment's existence.

[myrkul]

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

In that fight, it's not about winning. That's not a fight that can be won.

That fight is about making the fight expensive to continue. And basically, unless there's been a military coup or some other "It's not the US anymore" scenario, it's not worth fighting that kind of fight. The people won't be behind you, and when the media calls you a nutjob, nobody will doubt it.

[FirstAscent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

[myrkul]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors."

In other words, Graph is forthcoming.

PS, re: baby stuff, False alarm. Momma and babies (twins!) are fine.

[FirstAscent]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors."

In other words, Graph is forthcoming.

PS, re: baby stuff, False alarm. Momma and babies (twins!) are fine.

What part of the above definition regarding social sciences did you not comprehend? You can wear blinders all your life if you wish, but there's no denying significant correlation. It's obvious from just visually reading the data.

Are you not able to tally up the averages for the first 10 and last 10 in the sample set? Or perhaps the first 20 and last 20? Or perhaps the first 25 and last 25. Slice and dice it all you want. It doesn't take heavy computation to see simple correlation.

[myrkul]

Here's the graph... Maybe now you can see what I meant when I said "the numbers are all over the place":

More permissive<----------------------------------------------------->Less permissive

There's a trend... vaguely. But the highest data point is in the middle, and the least permissive has more gun deaths than the third most permissive, and the 9th. And all of the other top 5 least permissive states. Sure, I could slice and dice that data to show pretty much any result I wanted. But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

[grantbdev]

One thing I don't understand

For the record, I retract my not understanding. Sorry it offended people.

[myrkul]

One thing I don't understand

For the record, I retract my not understanding. Sorry it offended people.

lol... for the record, I was not offended. I hope my explanation was helpful.

[vampire]

Anyone want to graph the data on that list for FA, so he can see what I'm talking about? Apparently he doesn't understand the phrase "the numbers are all over the place" I gotta do some errands, but if it's not been done by the time I get back, I'll throw a graph together real quick.

Not certain what he meant, but lets say the difference of law between Louisiana and Mississippi could be little so on the chart they could be put closer.

Louisiana, so they only require a permit to carry guns.

Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No
Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? No
Registration of handguns? No
Licensing of owners of handguns? No
Permit to carry handguns? Yes

[westkybitcoins]

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.

I repeat: look into the research done by John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." This angle of the gun issue has already been soundly analyzed.

[cryptoanarchist]

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.

I repeat: look into the research done by John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." This angle of the gun issue has already been soundly analyzed.

+1...the debate has been over