Are you Democrat or Republican?? Take the Quiz.

[Michael-5]

Kasz216 said:

Michael-5 said:

 

B) Ok, so you clearly don't have any scientific understanding background.  A "Significant correlation" is just that... one that is significant... as in scientifically proveable.  If a correlation is not significant that means that there is no proof, and it could just be there due to background data. 

Also... Singapore does not ban guns.

A) I assume you agree with my logic here.

B) I got my degree in Astrophysics...LOL Resorting to insult is indication of an inability to conjure up a more intelligent response.

Singapore doesn't ban guns, but they are heavily restricted.

Again, I agree that guns aren't the only reason why homicide rates are so high in USA (but it's a big factor in states like Nevada). I took a few classes in Law and I know that most homicides are alcohol influenced. Very few are planned out in advance, and the gun massecures are usually a result of psychological disorders. I know that homicide rates are more strongly affected by literacy rates and poverty, but I still see no reason why handguns should be legal. I also think the minimum age to own a rifle should be higher, every time I think about Virginia tech, it's a tragedy.

A Rifle does everything a handgun can do, and more. Plus it's difficult to conceil, so you don't have to worry about someone shooting you publicly as much.

A) No I just skipped it because you didn't know what significant correlation meant.

B) It wasn't an insult.  I was being serious.   You didn't understand what the term "Significant correlation" meant.   I was trying to explain it to you as a lot of people don't have a requisite understanding of statistics or the scientific method which is sad.

A significant correlation looks more like this.

 

 

Also. god no.  Nevada's high rates of crime and murder are due to all the drug addicts/gambling addicts who end up homeless on the streets because they keep feeding their addictions.

A) But you have no counter?

B) My arguement was poorly worded, the correlation might not be strong, but it's there, and I still beleive it's scientifivally significant. I'm not arguing to ban gun enitrely (although I do think it would help reduce homicide rates drastically), just arguing for smarter gun control. There is no need to own a handgun, handguns account for the vast majority of gun related homicides in the USA, and since 60% of homicides in the USA are gun related, I would bet that handguns are a primary killing tool in the USA.

You can protect your house fine with a rifle, and I really don't think anybody should be allowed to walk around with a gun. You can argue it's for protection, but I can't imagine anyone feeling safe if everyone was carrying a handgun. What's going to stop one mad man from going on a rampage? This is why USA has annual "school shootings" like Columbine and Virgina Tech, where Canada has none.

LOL about Nevada, I forgot Vegas was there. At least we agree that gun ownership isn't the only factor influencing homicide rates, and we agree that other factors are much more detrimental (like drugs and poverty).