3 ms·
> that does not change the fact that this article's headline is misinforming. You haven't made any arguments in support of this claim. > Further, the data is
by jberryman 11y ago
> that does not change the fact that this article's headline is misinforming.
You haven't made any arguments in support of this claim.
> Further, the data is misleading as well. Suicides, homicides, and accidental deaths are three different things.
Yes, what is your point?
> This means that the data tells us nothing about whether tougher laws would help or hurt the state of gun-related death
Rates of gun ownership is tightly-correlated with rates of gun-related deaths, at whatever scale you cut it. This also holds true for gun suicides:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence...
- dawnbreez 11y agoThe article's title is phrased in such a way that it implies gun deaths have increased to meet vehicular deaths. It's clickbait. Suicides, homicides, and accidents all have different motives and circumstances. Further, suicides and homicides are often driven by mental illness, while accidemts are driven by not following precautions. They require different strategies to fix each problem, because they are three different problems. Correlation between the existence of firearms and the presence of fireaems deaths is actually kind of obvious people cannot die of something that has not been invented yet. The real question is causality: Why do people get shot and killed? This is why the data in this article is useless--there is no control group. It does not show whether gun deaths are more frequent where firearms are legal, or more common where they have been outlawed. It merely shows that they exist. Show me data that indicates--beyond a shadow of a doubt--that states with looser gun laws have more firearms homicides than states with stricter gun laws. Then you will have won.