Submitted by Social_Philosophy t3_113twme in dataisbeautiful
Comments
Social_Philosophy OP t1_j8sekoj wrote
As requested, improved readability and State labels.
fishforpot t1_j8uh72d wrote
Wtf is going on in Maryland😳
[deleted] t1_j8u7il8 wrote
[deleted]
JPAnalyst t1_j8s7dbi wrote
I get that you needed a quick rebuttal to the other post this morning, but you could have put a sliver of TLC into this to make it more appealing and help us easily interpret the takeaway.
Social_Philosophy OP t1_j8s87np wrote
What would you like changed? The only thing I couldn't really decide on was adding a trend-line or not.
I tried labeling each data-point with the corresponding State, but it looked extremely cluttered and hurt the readability.
JPAnalyst t1_j8s8mjj wrote
The dots should be bigger. Much bigger. If you do nothing else do that. The fonts should be bigger.
Also, you can definitely label the states, if you want to. Use two letter abbreviations. And where it gets cluttered, manually move them around using the line that will still point to the dot for ease in associating them with the right dot.
If you don’t want to label all of them, label a few outliers you know the audience would key in on.
Social_Philosophy OP t1_j8s9m5b wrote
Yeah, I would definetly increase the size of the points and all text further, if I was going to post again. It seems pretty good when clicked fullscreen, but everything is a little small at the default size reddit embeds it at.
Good call on abbreviations and outliers.
For anyone who wants to know, the highest gun ownership rate is Montana at 65.7%, the highest gun homicide rate is Louisiana, at 9.29 per 100K, and the lowest for both is Hawaii.
I actually realized I screwed up the chart, the highest gun homicide rate is DC at 19.72, I completely cut it off the top of the chart.
crimeo t1_j8uwoor wrote
DC is not a state. If you included it, then your title is wrong.
"...vs a percentage of households owning a firearm in each US state"
Social_Philosophy OP t1_j8uy6z3 wrote
Fortuitous that I failed to include then, ain't it?
crimeo t1_j8uza65 wrote
Ah I thought you meant you included it but just GRAPHICALLY cut it off.
(Not the same thing as not including it at all, since you have an r^2 value listed as well which would still be influenced by something not visible)
dml997 t1_j8uc9av wrote
A trend line and R^2 would be helpful.
ExecTankard t1_j8t7tfo wrote
Looks like a shotgun blast at 40%
runningdreams t1_j8v4qzd wrote
What’s going on in the state with the 7th lowest ownership rate and the 4th highest homicide rate?
dapperKillerWhale t1_j8vm73o wrote
Its called "guns dont kill people on their own"
runningdreams t1_j8vwlfc wrote
Yes, I figured as much.
the_xaiax t1_j8w4un6 wrote
Unregistered /stolen guns bought outside of the state. Also, Baltimore.
Durkheimenstein t1_j8u08wc wrote
Suicide rate is consistently tied to gun access. That’s one reason white men have by far the highest suicide rates. Most gun deaths are suicides. Here’s youth suicide rate by households w firearms per state. https://i.imgur.com/UX9dG9t.jpg
crimeo t1_j8uwilh wrote
Literally the whole point of them posting this was that people wanted the numbers without suicides from the other graph earlier today in a different thread. This is homicides.
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j8vh6n4 wrote
There are better predictors of homicide rates and gun homicide rates than gun ownership. It just gets awkward to talk about them.
crimeo t1_j8vilil wrote
Name any that you can make anywhere near as cheap simple policy decisions to fix as banning guns.
tomwilhelm t1_j8ydovy wrote
There is nothing cheap or simple about banning guns.
crimeo t1_j8yehc3 wrote
Dozens of countries have done it and didn't go into any sort of mysterious recession or have years and years of massive complications of any sort. So... wrong? Observably wrong.
/u/accurate_reporter252 that is assuming everyone having guns would somehow have led to fewer deaths in those cases. Please refer to the graph at the top of the screen... or the fact that everyone in WWII had guns...
The most proven effective way to cause societal change is NONVIOLENT protest, for which you don't need guns. It turns out to be more effective by not escalating into further violence and thus garnering more and more sympathy from the unconvinced population who join your side until strikes and such grind the country to a halt, unless change is made, which it then is. Violent protest is much more rarely successful
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820
I will not be replying here again since reddit does not allow you to reply to third parties when some other guy your replied to blocked you, so you will have to take it to DMs if you like.
edit 2 "literally cannot reply here because of a bug" was confusing, I guess, so continued at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j932gyn/
tomwilhelm t1_j8yhgxl wrote
The dozens of countries you're talking about: Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence Don't have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope
None of those things apply to the US.
I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.
Jexp_t t1_j90tte5 wrote
With so many parochial drama queens like this out there, I doubt America’s gun nuts have much to worry about.
Beyond being shot, that is.
crimeo t1_j8yjken wrote
> Never had many guns in the first place Had lower violent crimes rates even before guns were banned
Wow almost as if few guns has a relationship to low gun crime! Wacky!
They did not have by any means zero guns, however, and the point stands they encountered no significant issues in banning them.
> [Europe doesn't] have huge populations of historically marginalized poor stuffed into urban ghettos
You should probably learn anything at all about European history before replying to a conversation about Europe.
> Have cultures where deference to authority is a norm, rather than fierce independence
Name a single instance in living memory where a notable group of people "Defended themselves against authority" with guns in America successfully. This does not happen. If you resist authority with guns, they bring bigger guns. You die. The end. Complete fantasy realities do not bear on actual real life policy considerations.
> Have a social safety net and educational systems that give people hope
What on earth does that have anything to do with what we are talking about? Banning guns. "I had a good relationship with my mother and I like strawberry ice cream, therefore guns can't be banned" No you can't just list random ass things out of a hat and pretend it's an argument.
> I'm sure you mean well, but you have no idea. The day guns are banned is the day the US ceases to exist.
I spent most of my life in the U.S. I also happen to know that almost nobody even gave two shits about the 2nd amendment prior to like the 1960s. It was not considered an even minorly significant aspect of the country's identity for the vast majority of its existence. To act like it is THE core pillar of American identity is absurd.
Edit since you blocked me: "I'm sure you'll succeed someday" I don't live in America anymore, so I already succeeded in escaping to a sane country that doesn't needlessly let its citizens die, but thank you for the unnecessary well wishes all the same.
tomwilhelm t1_j8ylsvw wrote
Well good luck with all that! I'm sure you'll succeed someday!
[deleted] t1_j92oy08 wrote
[removed]
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j8zu02s wrote
Dozens of countries that also include countries accounting for millions of civilian deaths post-gun control.
Nothing says "lack of massive complications" like mass graves and bulldozed bodies.
AftyOfTheUK t1_j9055is wrote
>Dozens of countries have done it
Sure, but the people in the US aren't going to let it happen, so it's neither simple nor cheap.
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j930nge wrote
Accurate reporter 252 is assuming less deaths than what typically happens when governments have a unilateral access to use of force, especially when outside agencies--like the US and possibly NATO or the UN--are willing to put boots on the ground to stop massive killing by government.
So, Bosnia... that was interfered with (late in the game) by NATO.
Most of the sub-Saharan African "culls" of citizens like Rwanda played themselves out without much outside interference.
The Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and others killed millions after disarming their countrymen.
As far as nonviolent protest...
Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.
So, Chinese nonviolent protests haven't worked out for a long time. Likewise, Southern US efforts to stop Jim Crow didn't work for about a century until the rest of the country started seeing dead black men hung from trees in the news more often and made it a national issue instead of the state levels.
Until then, "nonviolent" protests by black people against being kept out of the ballot boxes usually resulted in a whole lot of violence done to them.
You should read a bit about the "Arab Summer" as well.
You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war.
Oh, and the Second Amendment?
That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests. It's there to make the cost of violence against the people high enough to keep the government listening to non-violent complaints...
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j8ztdti wrote
I'm not sure cheap is a term I would use with banning guns in the US.
First problem is that about 1/3 or more of the population disagrees and has the means--economic, hopefully--to make it very awkward to ban them and keep a government in power.
Additionally, the whole rest of the Bill of Rights would need to be tossed in order to succeed with banning guns in the US. No right to privacy (lest people get together to form resistance to the policy or make guns on their own), no right to assemble, no right to a jury trial (how do you convict people when a third or more of the jury agrees with the accused on these policies?), no right to a whole lot of other things.
And the black markets that will come up quick.
I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so and created organized crime families that lasted for decades beyond...
Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government.
Not sure cheap is the word I would use.
41tru t1_j91m6dh wrote
Why would you throw out the entirety of the Bill of Rights? You could just throw out amendment 2, or nullify it.
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j92yw9z wrote
TLDR: Banning guns sounds easy, but you can't enforce it without trashing the other rights.
So, you ban guns.
There are over 400 million in circulation. These guns can last (effectively) over 100 years and people can make and do make them at home.
They also share how to make them with each other and that's protected under the 1st Amendment.
So, are you just going to leave 400 million guns out there with over 1/3 of the population who don't particularly care about gun laws?
No, you're going to have to go get them.
And then you're going to want to prosecute these people.
So, first you have to stop them from sharing information about guns, how to avoid getting caught, how to make guns, and how to hide them plus how to organize a resistance--violent or political--and that means chucking the right to free speech and privacy.
You're going to have to go into these people's homes and places of business to collect these guns.
There's no way in hell you're getting past all of the judges requiring definitive evidence to grant a warrant. There goes warrantless searches.
Oh, and once you have these people in hand, putting them in front of a jury to convict them when the odds are a good chunk of the jury isn't going to find them guilty is a massive waste of time, effort, and good will.
Beyond the fact you need at least 6 jurors typically and trying 100 million people for possession would require either career jury members or about 600 million people in a country with less than half of that in adults and--without knowing who is who--you're at risk of massive jury nullification.
Oh, and by convicting 1/3 of the population, who's going to grow the food and pay the taxes for the massive amount of new prisons?
You're probably going to need to bring back slavery to allow you to force them to grow food while in prison.
Finally, you can't take any new votes.
Once you piss off and alienate that many people, you're going to have an uphill battle every step of the way after that and it puts so many political hijinks on deck for the rest of the country's existence.
Imagine just losing enough of an election once to have people try to overturn such a policy?
Even if you stepped in militarily again, you start looking like Liberia in modern times: All the trappings of a good government and coup after coup with mock elections.
crimeo t1_j902wii wrote
> 1/3 or more of the population disagrees / Ignoring, of course, the fact you'll likely have half the states in the country trying to start a Constitutional convention or secede or just stop listening to the Federal government
Why would a state that voted to ban guns try to secede over banning guns? The whole starting premise of the conversation here is that 3/4 of states already agreed to an amendment.
It is implied of course in this hypothetical that the country actually wants to do it and is literate about the data and cares about people not randomly pointlessly dying etc. and decided to become a modern civilized country already.
> No right to privacy
Right to privacy isn't one of the bills of rights... but also you don't have privacy about sales of anything anyway, you need to report sales of things for taxes, for one, whenever asked. The main thing here is banning sales, not ownership.
> no right to assemble
? Nothing to do with the conversation
> no right to a jury trial
?? What on earth? Even less to do with the conversation. The parentheses explain nothing about how this is remotely relevant.
> And the black markets that will come up quick.
Black markets require something to sell. If legal guns aren't for sale anymore, where are they getting their stock from? Random reasonable citizens aren't just selling their guns to criminal syndicates, and you can't just whip up advanced firearms in your garage.
> I mean, they banned alcohol for a decade or so
-
Like half the world has banned guns, where unlike alcohol, things worked completely fine. So they are clearly totally different situations.
-
There's a pretty obvious REASON why they're different, too: You can make your own alcohol with some fruit, and buckets, and a bit of copper tubing. You cannot casually make your own AR-15 with scrap wood, plumbing pipe, and eyeglasses or whatever.
tomwilhelm t1_j8ydjuq wrote
Explain Japan and South Korea?
Helblind t1_j8xtp5r wrote
So... 60% ownership or higher is the sweet spot. 😏
stickybuttflaps t1_j8wpqh9 wrote
What am I supposed to take from this? I don't see any trend (by eye.) It says R^(2) = 3.6% in the corner, which suggests you added a trend line, but then deleted it because it missed 95.7% of th edata...
tomwilhelm t1_j8ye6xq wrote
There is no correlation. That's kinda the point.
DarkC0ntingency t1_j8yveqg wrote
So correlation is weak, if existent at all. Am I reading this correctly?
Dragon-Ash t1_j8ywj8g wrote
OP's data is garbage, the chart is meaningless - see my comment below.
DarkC0ntingency t1_j8ywxz1 wrote
Whatever comment you’re referring to I can’t find. I even looked at past comments on your profile but when I try to open them it doesn’t load. Weird.
[deleted] t1_j8yx4n9 wrote
[removed]
AftyOfTheUK t1_j905cu4 wrote
You've posted this comment twice, but they are your only two comments in the thread. Furthermore "below" depends on what order someone is viewing the posts in. Try linking your comment.
PavelPod t1_j8uk1il wrote
I believe if you compare states like Massachusetts with gun strict European countries numbers will be pretty close…
[deleted] t1_j8s765p wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j8v2jup wrote
[removed]
meistaiwan t1_j8v2t1o wrote
Trend line is obviously going up, not sure why excluded from this chart is this is a response to the other one with also a trend line going up
[deleted] t1_j8wqy8o wrote
[removed]
Excellent-Practice t1_j8x87l8 wrote
Do you have a line of best fit? It looks like there might be a correlation, but I'd like to see the actual numbers. Could you share your data set?
Dragon-Ash t1_j8ywi2x wrote
OP's data is garbage, the chart is meaningless - see my comment below.
ChocolateBunny t1_j8xzr9r wrote
The link for guns per capita looks wrong: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/guns-per-capita/
Did you mean gun-ownership-by-state: https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state/?
crimeo t1_j932gyn wrote
What part of "I literally cannot reply further because of reddit, take it to DMs please" was confusing?
But fine, we can do it here:
Continuing from https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/113twme/oc_gun_homicide_rate_vs_gun_ownership_rate_in_the/j930nge/
> Nonviolent protest is highly effective up to the point the government isn't willing to directly or indirectly use violence on people.
Ftfy. Non violent protest has NEVER failed in modern history if you have just 3.5% of the population involved. That includes communist states, dictators, warlord states, you name it, whatever:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world
> You play peace until it doesn't work, then you go to war. and it literally always works if any significant number of supporters are on board and actually care about your cause
Ftfy too, same link just above.
> That's insurance to try and keep the American government from using violence against non-violent protests.
Which doesn't work and you should ask for a refund from your insurer, because shooting back always merely escalates and leads to way more violence. See first link above.
Even if you hypothetically win an entire revolution as a result, and don't end up as (far more likely) the next waco TX, it STILL failed to be "insurance against violence" since you instead massively increased violence.
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j93z9fr wrote
Revolutions are violent. Most definitely, violence tends to promote violence.
Totally.
Also, you should read about Arab Summer.
Also, you should read about the history of the American South with regards to civil rights restrictions and the like.
Also, you should check out the history of "nonviolent protests" in China and the former Soviet Union, and a lot of other places because--again--nonviolent protests last only to the tolerance of the government.
Once more, the whole idea behind the American Second Amendment is the deterrence of needing violence again and the creation and maintenance of a government who would prefer nonviolent protesting to the application of violence.
The idea is to create a government who understands going to war against it's own constituents--unlike the Soviets, the Chinese Communist, the Cubans, the Libyans, etc., etc. etc.--is likely to cause them problems too. So, in the American scheme, government continues to listen instead of rounding people they don't like up into camps or reservations or whatnot (again) or tolerating the local governments beating people down and/or allowing them to be freely lynched (anymore) without a lot of risk to themselves.
So, so far, the insurance mostly works.
I mean, except black people getting machinegunned in the 1960's, and Kent State, of course, and probably the Democratic Convention riots in the 1960's.
crimeo t1_j941e1x wrote
> You should read about
I know about those topics already. What you think they have to do with the conversation, though, I am not sure. You need to outline that yourself, I'm not going to guess your whole argument for you, if any.
> nonviolent protests last only to the tolerance of the government.
I just gave you a source showing that it literally not once has ever failed in all of modern history, worldwide, any form of government, anywhere, with even just a measly 3.5% of the population protesting, or more.
No. It's not "at the tolerance of" anything. It ALWAYS works. Governments can't do shit. Or else some of them would have. None of them have. None.
So... wrong. And already cited as wrong...
> Once more, the whole idea behind the American Second Amendment is the deterrence of needing violence again and the creation and maintenance of a government who would prefer nonviolent protesting to the application of violence.
The founders such as in the federalist papers made very clear they were talking about literal militias, to avoid the need for a standing army. Not anything to do with protesting or casual civilian affairs of any such sort. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
The fixation on individual gun ownership as a private one person or family unit matter began in the 1960s as a re-conceptualization of the amendment by the Black Panthers to give them an edge over the cops they were beefing with who didn't expect to see them walking around with shotguns on the street observing. Yes, their conceptualization is similar to yours. Which was then adopted by other groups like the NRA (which before that was totally into gun control). But that began in the 1960s. Not 1860s, not 1760s. Not Jefferson or Hamilton or Madison, etc...
> So, so far, the insurance mostly works. I mean, except for (1960s examples)
Uh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Washington,_D.C.,_attack_and_hostage_taking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/04/us/separatists-end-texas-standoff-as-5-surrender.html
Meanwhile, do you have any examples of a situation where a group of people brandished guns at police to try and scare them off and it WORKED?
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j94hxtt wrote
Meanwhile, do you have any examples of a situation where a group of people brandished guns at police to try and scare them off and it WORKED?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
Hmmm... 1992 LA Riots is an easy one. LAPD totally just bunkered down for a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Here's one with a specific Federal involvement.
Those are the easy ones.
"The founders such as in the federalist papers made very clear they were talking about literal militias, to avoid the need for a standing army. Not anything to do with protesting or casual civilian affairs of any such sort. I have no idea where you got that idea from."
They had just finished forcing the British government to leave the country and let them start a new government about 100 years after their ancestors did essentially the same thing and killed a king (before letting a new king back to take over).
I'm pretty sure they didn't think the part of armed overthrow of an overreaching government was necessary to spell out again, especially after the Declaration of Independence and the common understanding of a right to arms at the time... minus the racist efforts at disarming black people and natives.
"I just gave you a source showing that it literally not once has ever failed in all of modern history, worldwide, any form of government, anywhere, with even just a measly 3.5% of the population protesting, or more."
https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011
Peaceful protests...
...government attacks...
...civil war.
Eventually, they :"won" after a civil war and Qaddafi was gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war
The Syrian Civil War started with peaceful protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI060eBm5xM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Syrian_Revolution
Massive protests, government crackdown killing thousands, and then an armed response which is ongoing at this point.
There are others.
crimeo t1_j94linb wrote
> Bundy standoff
Alright that's a good example. Except:
-
They only seem to have stood down because the amount in dispute was only $1M. The cost to recruit and certify a police officer and the amount they have to pay out in survivor benefits to spouse and children if a single one dies can add up to $2M+... not very likely this would work with anything higher stakes or easier to respond to (such as more urban where they could be affordably overwhelmed sufficiently to just give up with minimal risk)
-
The guy was very obviously breaking the law and already received due process to that effect, so your example is pretty counterproductive to what your original argument was about standing up to tyranny. It being, instead, a criminal standing up to completely fair and resaonable treatment and avoiding paying what his own countrymen and peers voted for laws saying that he should pay... he stood up to the People, not to tyranny. So... the one clear successful example backfired actually...
> LA Riots is an easy one. LAPD totally just bunkered down for a while.
Right at the top "12,000 arrests were made" and "[police were blamed for] failure to de-escalate" i.e. the exact opposite of what you were supposed to be demonstrating...
Not being 100% active the entire time 24/7 is not "being stood down", and your own source summarizes them as being overall highly active, in fact too active.
> I'm pretty sure they didn't think the part of armed overthrow of an overreaching government was necessary to spell out again
You're "pretty sure" that an allegedly foundational principle of the country didn't need to be mentioned AT ALL in hundreds of pages of commentary about the foundational principles of the country. Despite even the fact that they DID take the time to write down thoughts at some length about the 2nd amendment specifically, but still mysteriously didn't have the time (?) to include the "actual" reasons for it. Lol alright dude.
Or maybe you just made that up, and it was about state militias removing the need for a federal standing army. You know, exactly like they explicitly say it was about. And that's it. Wacky alternative theory!
> https://www.britannica.com/event/Libya-Revolt-of-2011
Not peaceful protests anymore, because they started shooting back. I, and my source, were quite clear when I said no PEACEFUL protests greater than 3.5% have ever failed.
> The Syrian Civil War started with peaceful protests.
Not peaceful protests anymore because they started shooting back. So invalid datapoint.
Not sure what's so confusing about what I said, it's really not that complicated. 3.5% of the populaiton + peaceful = 100% success rate.
Your own sources also confirm the same mechanism I described: when they got gunned down initially, it garnered massive local + international sympathy, which is what would have won it for them if they stayed peaceful. Numbers of involved protesters swell much faster than bodies piling up do (you kill one guy, his whole family and best friends join the protests), sanctions start raining down internationally, etc.
When you shoot back, people stop gaining any swell of massive sympathy. You may sometimes still win, but statistically half as often as if you hadn't shot back. Not 0%, just half, but still unstrategic to do so. The bullets are about 50% as effective as the sympathy would have been.
Accurate_Reporter252 t1_j94x6lu wrote
>Alright that's a good example. Except:
>
>They only seem to have stood down because the amount in dispute was only $1M. The cost to recruit and certify a police officer and the amount they have to pay out in survivor benefits to spouse and children if a single one dies can add up to $2M+... not very likely this would work with anything higher stakes or easier to respond to (such as more urban where they could be affordably overwhelmed sufficiently to just give up with minimal risk)The guy was very obviously breaking the law and already received due process to that effect, so your example is pretty counterproductive to what your original argument was about standing up to tyranny. It being, instead, a criminal standing up to completely fair and resaonable treatment and avoiding paying what his own countrymen and peers voted for laws saying that he should pay... he stood up to the People, not to tyranny. So... the one clear successful example backfired actually...
So, the fear of the outcome of an armed attack stopped the government's actions?
Ah.
Also, all charges were dismissed with prejudice. That means no convictions. That means--at the end of the day--not a crime.
Ergo... not a backfire.
"Not being 100% active the entire time 24/7 is not "being stood down", and your own source summarizes them as being overall highly active, in fact too active."
LAPD literally bunkered down.
They put up barriers around precincts, stopped patrolling, and turned the city over to everyone else.
Then, later, the National Guard and the regular military (Army and Marines) came in and "showed the flag" with very limited access to more than small arms to avoid situations where the military shot up local buildings in the Detroit riots and others.
"You're "pretty sure" that an allegedly foundational principle of the country didn't need to be mentioned AT ALL in hundreds of pages of commentary about the foundational principles of the country. Despite even the fact that they DID take the time to write down thoughts at some length about the 2nd amendment specifically, but still mysteriously didn't have the time (?) to include the "actual" reasons for it. Lol alright dude."
I notice in all of our conversation so far, you haven't mentioned breathing, shitting, or eating.
Sort of a universal thing, those three.
Unless you're sick, have a fetish, or are looking for restaurant suggestions, those don't come up in typical conversations because they are assumed.
Likewise, we have basically nothing in the US Constitution about farming or the founding documents about farming except with regards to slavery, interstate commerce, and the like.
This isn't because farming isn't important. It's because everyone assumes farming will happen.
Why would you spend time discussing a right you just used to create your own government--a right assumed to be present in English common law to that time since at least the 1680's--other than the particulars regarding potential changes like the militia vs. standing army discussion?
You wouldn't. Just like you aren't going to talk about what your breath smells like or whether your bowel movements are firm or loose.
Other things not mentioned in the founding documents:
Sex.
What the definition of a woman is.
How marriage laws are constructed.
What the proper age of wine should be.
What language to use on most documents.
Etc.
All of which end up being important later, but are assumed and relevant to discussions in certain ways.
"Not peaceful protests anymore, because they started shooting back. I, and my source, were quite clear when I said no PEACEFUL protests greater than 3.5% have ever failed."
Exactly so!
They started peaceful.
Then people started dying.
Then they fought back.
Now there's an ongoing civil war.
The peaceful part depended on the actions of the government.
When the government decided to start killing people, they had a choice. Let the government kill all of them (or however many the government wanted to kill) or to shut up and go home.
Or are you suggesting you should continue to peacefully protest amidst incoming machine gun fire?
"Your own sources also confirm the same mechanism I described: when they got gunned down initially, it garnered massive local + international sympathy, which is what would have won it for them if they stayed peaceful. Numbers of involved protesters swell much faster than bodies piling up do (you kill one guy, his whole family and best friends join the protests), sanctions start raining down internationally, etc."
So, in the beginning, you suggested governments make economic decisions as part of this process...
...which implies the question of whether it's cheaper to simply keep shooting peaceful protestors with machine guns until they stop protesting (or being alive to protest) is a key element to this discussion.
And the answer is that it's probably cheaper--once you start shooting--to keep shooting until you win in many cases because you don't have to worry about "peaceful protestors" costing you more than money for bullets.
And--by the way--know what else swells when you kill people?
Their body, in the streets as they decompose once you've killed their entire family.
What's to stop you?
International sympathy?
International efforts to block you economically?
Like how it's working with Putin and the Chinese government who are "hosting" large numbers of ethnic minorities who would "peacefully protest" if they didn't expect to get killed anyway....
So, you either put up with things the way they are now or you "peacefully protest" and hope for sympathy while the government machine guns you and your friends and your family.
Sounds like a real winner.
crimeo t1_j951jec wrote
> So, the fear of the outcome of an armed attack stopped the government's actions?
Yes I already agreed it was a valid example...?
> That means no convictions.
The charges for showing up with guns and shit were dropped. The $1,000,000 fines and the grazing injunction were not dropped, still apply, and had due process in arriving at them. The grazing is and has been all along a properly categorized crime (or misdemeanor or tort or whatever the technical category is). The gun play is not.
So making the government not bother to enforce the illegal grazing penalties is a man standing up against the People and the Rule of Law.
People thwarting the rule of law and due process is absolutely a backfire. Or are you "pretty sure" the founders meant for rule of law to not be a thing either, but just didn't get the time to write that down either?
> LAPD literally bunkered down.
So did people in the Battle of Britain during every bomb sortie, which the allies then proceeded to win. So what? Bunkering down during hot spots =/= backing down or quitting or running away or losing. So what? They absolutely did not, according to your own source, stay bunkered down the whole time. it is mentioned only infrequently in narrow situations in the timeline.
> They put up barriers around precincts, stopped patrolling, and turned the city over to everyone else.
If only your own source backed you up on that, cool fanfiction though. What it actually says was that not only were police continuing to work, but they were airlifting in MORE police from surrounding areas up to and through the same period of time that the national guard were arriving.
Your own source also talks about all kinds of PATROLS in different areas of the city up to the same point in the timeline as the national guard, and those patrols being reinforced, and what they were up to and so on.
The hell are you talking about, seriously?
> I notice in all of our conversation so far, you haven't mentioned breathing, shitting, or eating.
I would if I was writing a summary medical/anatomy textbook 😂 The equivalent of the federalist papers and/or constitution and/or declaration of independence and other founding documents, specifically all about laying out the foundational principles.
And I would mention breathing dozens of times, if I furthermore had a chapter on the lungs specifically and what exactly the lungs were for, which is the equivalent of having essays on the second amendment and what exactly its purpose was and what balance was struck, etc.
> Then people started dying. Then they fought back.
At which point they reduced their chance of success by 50% versus not fighting back and remaining peaceful. Correct.
> The peaceful part depended on the actions of the government.
No... Them CHOOSING to fight back depended on THEM.
> Or are you suggesting you should continue to peacefully protest amidst incoming machine gun fire?
Yes, I have ELI5'ed this multiple times. If you want to have double the chance of success, that is exactly correct. Remain non violent. Do you want to have double the chance of success? Or not? (In case you're unaware, by the way, "running away" from a gun currently shooting at you is non-violent.)
And if you get 3.5% of the population in on it as well, your chance of success goes to around 100%
> simply keep shooting peaceful protestors with machine guns until they stop protesting
They DON'T "stop protesting" when you shoot them a lot. They protest MORE. Your industries start shutting down from strikes, your treasure stops flowing in. The protestors swell from outrage making recruitment easy as hell for them, and they now outnumber your henchmen by 40:1 instead of 10:1. Then next month 100:1 if you keep shooting more... your own guys start defecting because whoops! You shot your own lieutenant's cousin yesterday. Oopsie, he went to the protestors. And the whole rest of the world meanwhile joins them in protesting and begins to sanction you back to the stone age...
Your question is inherently leading in that you wrote into it an incorrect assumption that "you can make people stop by shooting them". No. You can't. Your assumed premise is simply wrong, according to all examples from modern history.
> What's to stop you? International sympathy?
Yes, that and domestic sympathy causing them to recruit +5 people locally for every one you shoot. As we see from a wide array of examples throughout modern history.
> Like how it's working with Putin and the Chinese government who are "hosting" large numbers of ethnic minorities who would "peacefully protest" if they didn't expect to get killed anyway....
They don't have 3.5% of the population, remember the TWO extremely simple rules I told you? Peaceful + 3.5%...
Uyghurs for example only number about 12 million people, out of 1,400 million Chinese overall... even if they organized at unprecedented levels and an incredible half of their number got out and protested at once, that'd be less than 1/2 of 1% of China.
Jews were about 0.5% of Germany in 1933
Armenians were about 4% of Turkey in 1915 (but it has to be people joined to the cause and actually protesting, you obviously won't get 88% of your group out protesting right out of the gate)
> Sounds like a real winner.
Yes. Correct. Unironically yes. The data shows it is a winner 2x more often than violence is. The data happening to conflict with your angry monkey brain telling you "monkey revenge! ooh ooh monkey smash!" does not make the data wrong, sorry.
SafeExpress3210 t1_j95xb8d wrote
Can we get homicide rates vs gun ownership rates?
aspheric_cow t1_j8upfdh wrote
Each state contains areas with very different demographics and laws. How about plotting data by county?
[deleted] t1_j95hhlk wrote
[deleted]
aspheric_cow t1_j95pbe9 wrote
I said county, not country.
[deleted] t1_j8vrarw wrote
[deleted]
debunk_this_12 t1_j8wnc2x wrote
There is just no real correlation. Update ur Bayesian priors my friend don’t call into confirmation bias. This like climate change deniers
chrisdolan622 t1_j8vr9y9 wrote
Gun homicides are more heavily concentrated in the larger Democrat-run cities. Gun ownership in the state has a whole has little to no correlation to gun violence.
[deleted] t1_j8yec27 wrote
[removed]
Jexp_t t1_j90ub75 wrote
Innumerate Republican can’t read simple graph so lies.
Story of the 21st Century.
mickelboy182 t1_j8w02e7 wrote
Yeah looking at it on a state by state basis isn't very useful... now compare on a country by country basis and it becomes very obvious
sexy_wash_bucket t1_j8v8gfm wrote
Gun access increases rates of suicide. I don’t know why you would think excluding suicides is some major statement
DarkLink1065 t1_j8veovh wrote
It was specifically requested by people in an earlier thread that had a similar chart that included suicides. Moreover, legislative solutions to suicides vs homicides might look very different, so you need to separate the data out to analyze that. If suicides are the driving factor and not homicides, for example, high capacity magazine and assault weapon bans won’t do any good.
whatweshouldcallyou t1_j8sas0i wrote
With larger dots and labels (state abbreviations) this would be more interpretable.