The graph is rather strange. It doesn't clearly identify which line goes with which set of numbers. The author(s) were probably so eager to create a misleading impression that they didn't pay much attention to creating a proper graph.
Not gun free, just no gun rights. You have to ask permission, 'prove' you're not a criminal and provide a reason... and self defense is not a reason. Thats the replacement of a right with a privaledge. In the state of California, gun rights have for the most part gone this route. You can own guns, but to use them in any realistic fashion, you need liscences which the state can deny for any reason. The result in the state of CA is that only rich people, govt officials, movie stars and other people of influence (and of course criminals) get to defend themselves with guns and Average law-abiding Joe gets the shaft. Completely ignoring the point. Guns are everywhere in america and nothing is going to change that, just like sex and drugs. You can't *make* parents teach their kids important stuff. Thats why we teach in school. Guns are no different. Kids need to be made aware of the risks, because just telling them 'this is bad, dont do it' doesnt work- they will try it for themselves either out of curiosity or rebellion. But if we teach them *why* and how to be safe, they will at least have the knowledge to be curious and rebel from an informed, safer position.
Sure they are. Believe what you want I honestly don't care. If you want to believe the police will protect you when you need them, you keep doing that. Gun control has lost, you just haven't accepted it yet.
It's actually quite easy to interpret, and two x axes are necessary to compare trends between two dissimilar numbers.
Yes thank you. It took me while to work it out since it was unlabelled Still does not take into account
How come everyone but you and Galileo figured it out? While correlation doesn't always imply causation, it can refer a causation claim based on the opposite correlation.
It's supported by THE SOURCE. I don't know why I try discussing things with people who can't even read charts.
It also doesn't say if the firearm death rate is per 100,000. I'm used to graphs that have one set of numbers on the x axis and one set of numbers on the y axis.
The chart is completely obvious, with the exception of the word "penetration" which takes about 2 seconds to grasp. You'd be lost without your little mantra. Too bad you don't understand it as you continually fall victim to it.
The misleading impression is further exacerbated by the fact that handguns are not evenly distributed throughout the population as it tries to imply. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/ http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/us-gun-ownership/ The fallacious "handgun availability per 100,000 people" is an utterly bogus metric given that only 22% of the population actually owns guns.
I would trust a Harvard study before I would ever trust the NRA's lies. And you are wrong that it was a phone survey. Here is how it was actually conducted. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
Why? Havard and many other university social studies programs have a left wing agenda and besides academia is littered with research fraud. The one thing left out of them is common sense.
Your "personal liberty and freedom" at the cost of the lives of 1300 innocent children sacrificed on the bloody high alter of the NRA. Don't know how anyone can sleep at night with that on their conscience.
