15 dead, including 14 children, in Texas elementary school mass shooting

[tnt]

@STODR

Yes I have a link. Like I said stop being lazy and reveling in your ignorance. I am not your Google. Took me less then 5 secs.

The one in the post above looks legit.

Map ends up being about the same as total gun deaths.

[WuWei]

My name is not google. I found it, you should be able to. Low information voters’ basic problem is spoon-feeding, usually from a media with an agenda.

I will not enable lack of critical thinking.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

Why? Why are you measuring “between varying population sizes”?

Is population the problem or is guns?

Stop. You are being silly.

If one state have 1,000,000 in it and 10,000 drug addicts, the other has 500,000 and 9,000 addicts, who is suffering a greater issue with drug addiction?

Is the problem the drug or the people?

The drug addicts.

[WuWei]

@tnt

The one in the post above looks legit.

It’s not.

[tnt]

@WuWei

Is the problem the drug or the people?

The drug addicts.

I’m not arguing the cause. I’m just commenting on the metric.

[tnt]

@WuWei

It’s not.

Why not?

[WuWei]

California leads the league.

[tnt]

@WuWei

California leads the league.

…and here we are again, right where we started.

OK, I’m done. If you don’t understand, or care to acknowledge the concept of per capita metrics, then there is no point discussing the topic with you.

This has officially become dumber than the ‘it doesn’t cost employers anything to replace dead workers’ posts of yours.

Congrats! You are always striving to better yourself!

[WuWei]

I do understand. You are trying to adjust for population at the same time you are blaming guns and trying to pass gun laws.

You don’t get to do that.

California has less than half the number of known guns as Texas. Yet California leads the league. And truth is the California gun numbers are probably pretty accurate while the Texas numbers are undoubtedly low.

So the disparity is even greater.

If you want to pass gun laws, measure and adjust for guns, not population.

Unless guns don’t kill, people do.

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

Is the problem the drug or the people?

The drug addicts.

I’m not arguing the cause. I’m just commenting on the metric.

The metric shouldn’t measure the cause for policy purposes?

[WuWei]

If you demand to adjust for population, are you not saying people are the cause?

[tnt]

@WuWei

I do understand. You are trying to adjust for population at the same time you are blaming guns and trying to pass gun laws.

You don’t get to do that.

California has less than half the number of known guns as Texas. Yet California leads the league. And truth is the California gun numbers are probably pretty accurate while the Texas numbers are undoubtedly low.

So the disparity is even greater.

If you want to pass gun laws, measure and adjust for guns, not population.

Unless guns don’t kill, people do.

This is beyond stupid.

The size of california’s population means OF COURSE they are going to lead in a WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS…everything from GDP to auto deaths, to gun deaths, to house fires, to cancer deaths, letters to santa claus, you name it! They are a huge state.

Without adjusting for population, it’s impossible to judge wether americans in CA are truly more likely to burn their house down or write to teh north pole.

That’s all I’m saying.

Once we agree about that, we can go on to question the next layer of discussion, which might be “Why , on a per capita basis, does MO have more gun deaths (and homicides) than say CA?”

Could it be gun laws? Maybe.
Could it be poverty? Maybe.
Could it be the number of guns in the state? Number of gun owners? Drug traffic?

That’s where we could go next, but we’ve just wasted a day arguing over ■■■■■■■■ because you won’t admit that CA isn’t as bad as it seems once you adjust for population.

It’s ■■■■■■■ stupid.

[WuWei]

Why do you need to adjust for population when California has less than half the number of guns as Texas?

[WuWei]

@tnt

because you won’t admit that CA isn’t as bad as it seems once you adjust for population.

Does population kill or guns?

[tnt]

@WuWei

If you demand to adjust for population, are you not saying people are the cause?

Of course people are the cause.

This is a little off the topic here, but it’s refreshing considering the time wasted discussing per capita…

Of course it’s the people that pull the trigger that are cause.

But this ain’t the minority report. We can’t read minds.

All we can do - IMO - is make it harder for them to murder us. One way to do that - and it’s not full proof, but there is evidence that it can help - is to put things in place, like thorough background checks, limit the sale of some guns, enforce waiting periods…

As you know, I would go further, with mandatory safety training, updated every few years, gun owner’s liability to encourae safe storage of guns, local police check ins…but that’s going no where.

[tnt]

@WuWei

Why do you need to adjust for population when California has less than half the number of guns as Texas?

It’s a more accurate, better than raw numbers metric. Is it perfect? Proabbly not, and that’s worth discussing. I’ve simply been pushing back on the ‘CA has the most deaths’. That’s meaningless given their size.

LInk for guns by state?

How many gun OWNERS are there in TX. I think that’s the relevant data.

[WuWei]

@tnt

Of course people are the cause.

Good, then no more talk of taking from me or banning, regulating, etc guns, because they aren’t the problem.

@tnt

like thorough background checks, limit the sale of some guns, enforce waiting periods…

Now you ruined it.

@tnt

with mandatory safety training

Sure, as soon as you have to pass a test on government to vote.

[WuWei]

@tnt

It’s a more accurate, better than raw numbers metric.

Why? It measures not the problem.

@tnt

That’s meaningless given their size.

The size of what? By your metric Wyoming shouldn’t have any.

[WuWei]

@tnt

Of course it’s the people that pull the trigger that are cause.

More people laws!

[tnt]

@WuWei

Now you ruined it.

Yeah, well, we can’t read minds. The pragmatic approach is to focus on the tool. And the evidence supports that.

I realize that won’t happen because there is far too much money being made opposing it.

Oh, for the days when the NRA wrote gun regulations for the legislature…