The one 88.8/100 disturbs me because, normally, when we look at rates, we look at per 1000 or 100,000. Why did they choose 100? I can't remember enough of my stats background to know. But 100 and per person - seems odd. We also don't know per _what_ persons. Are they talking all adults? All adults of a certain age?
When you break it down by household, you see the US has about 32% of households as gun owning households whereas Canada is 28% (from memory, so check me). There's still a difference - but the difference doesn't seem as stark as the per/100 people number, does it? http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html (you have to search for the country comparison)
If you don't understand that about gun ownership, if you don't know gun owners, then the number is used.. tendentiously, I think. It's troubling, but I suspect that has to do with the research organization and its goals.
It makes people think that, gosh, 88 out of 100 people, look around, are packing heat or have a shotgun in their SUV. Nah. More like 38 out of 100 people have a gun, and some of them just have them sitting at home for once a year deer hunting season, and trap shooting at the gun club every other weekend.
I have often wondered, throughout this conversation, just how many people here actually interact with gun owners and encounter the hobbyist, sportsman, or homeowner with a shotgun for protection types in their daily life.
I mean, if it weren't for the fact that I know, intellectually, that my house is home to, uh, a lot... I never have occasion to think about guns or see them on a daily basis when it comes to civilians.
How could anyone know what gun owners are like, how gun culture operates, etc... when they aren't even around them/it?
At 04:07 PM 12/20/2012, Sean Andrews wrote:
>Indeed. One thing mentioned in relation to that scatterplot data was that
>the US was way ahead of the heard in terms of guns per 100 people. But
>comments here point out that this is per capita, which skews when the issue
>is that there is more of a culture here of a small group of people (4.2
>million?) having a large number of guns per person, which then skews the
>rest of the the numbers. I don't know how that scatterplot takes this into
>consideration and I don't have the energy to trace the permutations this
>conversation has taken over the past few days. I thought for a brief
>moment, there was a glimmer of clarity or agreement, but then even I was
>convinced there might still be something to talk about here.
>
>I've just noticed how the highly emotionally charged conversation about gun
>control and shooters and mental health - and just the CT shootings in
>general seems to have captured the cultural attention at precisely the
>moment that Obama starts rolling out his nasty little safety net cuts. It's
>hard to pay attention to the argument for one measure of inflation over
>another in indexing benefits when they are burying children. Gun control,
>however vital a conversation you believe it to be, is taking a lot of
>oxygen from what should be a full on push against the looming and far more
>deadly austerity that could be coming our way.
>
>Funny how that works.
>
>On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Andy <andy274 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some interesting discussion in the comments regarding Canada. I, too,
> > blame Micheal Moore.
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2012/12/talk-to-me-like-i-am-stupid-understanding-international-gun-ownership-rates/266517/
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > To elaborate, frightened and reactionary whites fantasized they would
> > need
> > > > to defend themselves in a coming race war with angry young black
> > > militants
> > > > who were renouncing non-violence. Or that they would need arms to
> > defend
> > > > their homes and stores and neighbourhoods against black rioters. Or
> > that
> > > > they would need weapons to protect themselves on the streets, subways,
> > > > jogging paths, and in underground garages against non-white muggers and
> > > > rapists.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you want to make up your own fantasy history, sure. But the motives
> > you
> > > describe have a lot more to do with the imposition of gun control than
> > with
> > > whites (or anyone else) organizing/arming in opposition to it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this; it doesn't
> > require
> > > > volumes of research as some have demanded in this discussion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I trust that your reliance on "anecdotal evidence" will speak for itself,
> > > and requires no further elaboration by me. (The claims I could make
> > backed
> > > by "anecdotal evidence"! My mind reels at the possibilities ...)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your statement that the NRA "reacted most strongly to a racist backlash
> > > > against black gun ownership" is somewhat ambiguous, but I understand
> > you
> > > to
> > > > mean they were part of the racist backlash, rather than opposed to it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, rather the opposite (although anti-racism doesn't seem to have been a
> > > major factor in its opposition to the new gun control policies imposed
> > > during the Black Power era). Apologies for my lack of clarity.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> > > lytlað."
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andy
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)