MannyGoldstein
MannyGoldstein's JournalAny Statistics Experts Here?
I'm looking at gun control laws vs. firearms death rates by state, I'd like some help in testing for statistical significance and effect size. I have the data in an spreadsheet waiting to go...
Feel free to PM me or respond on this thread.
Thanks!
Repost: Massachusetts: nanny-state gun control FAIL
(I posted the following in July - seems appropriate to repost in light of yesterday's events)
So much over-the-top coverage of the shootings in Aurora! It's a sad story, but we should not overreact. On an average day in the US, roughly 80 people are killed by guns people who coincidentally happen to have guns, so Aurora only represents 15% of Friday's quota.
One thing I am thankful for is that we're not hearing people refer to my own state of Massachusetts as a model for reducing gun deaths.
As pretty much anybody who's paying attention knows, Massachusetts is a nanny-state's nanny state. For centuries it has been overrun with liberals, ranging from the Revolutionary War crowd, to the Kennedys, to that shrill woman Elizabeth Warren.
Par for the course, Massachusetts also has a bumper crop of second-amendment haters. Visitors realize this pretty quickly when they see the array of anti-second-amendment billboards on the side of the Mass Pike, by Fenway Park:
?w=300
Shameful!
Of course, it turns out that Mass has about the toughest gun laws in the country. Strictly by coincidence, it also has the second-lowest rate of gun deaths in the country. Hawaii, who also coincidentally has strict gun laws, has an even lower rate.
There are some gun grabber types who use so-called "math" to show that if Massachusetts had the same rate of gun deaths as our second-amendment-biding neighbors to the north (New Hampshire), we'd have more than 200 more dead people in our state each year. In fact, if the entire country had the same rate of gun deaths that we do, roughly 21,000 fewer people would be killed. I suppose that some sort of argument could be made that this would be a good thing, but we need to consider the other side of the equation.
Living in Massachusetts is Hell for gun enthusiasts. People need to know how bad it is here.
It's almost impossible to get guns and ammo in this state.
For example, on my commute to work each day, I pass only two gun stores. Only two! What would happen if I was having a shootout with another car on my way to work and needed more ammo pronto, or I wanted to upgrade my firepower? I might have to drive miles under withering attack before I could exercise these second-amendment rights. This is unacceptable.
One of my co-workers has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in our state. He actually had to apply for the permit, wait a few days, then get the permit. Soviet Union, anyone?
200 lives saved in our state each year. Is it really worth this terrible price?
Regards,
NRA Manny
(P.S. I was wrong: Mass actually has the *lowest* firearms death rate.)
Like most sensible Democrats, I know that now is not the time to discuss gun control.
It would just reek of cheap political gotcha games.
But how long should we wait before saying that nothing can be done? Should we wait a month? A year?
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
I think it will be different this time.
This is the way it's been for decades:
But this time, I think it will be different. America's 30-year flirtation with insanity and bullshit is drawing to an end.
It's high time we enforce the second amendment
Well-regulated militias only.
I have relatives in Newtowne, a very nice town. They are all above school age, so I suspect they're safe.
Why do we cultivate a society where this stuff festers and explodes?
John Kerry voted to wage war against Iraq
Is that what we really want in our top diplomat?
How 'bout we give peace a chance?
I know it's not sensible, but it would be nice to have an SoS who
doesn't think pointless wars are a grand idea.
Are any in the running?
Pelosi says NO to GOP and White House. Please back her up!
Let's be frank: Medicare has two big problems.
The first is that we in the US choose to have health care costs that are twice those in other developed nations, for outcomes that are no better. (Seems like a really stupid choice, but here we are.)
The second is that instead of reforming health care costs, many of our elected officials want to take away health care from senior citizens.
A battle has broken out in our own Democratic Party, between those who want to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, and those who don't. Fortunately, Nancy Pelosi has our back:
I urge every DU reader to contact their elected representatives and tell them to back Pelosi in doing the right thing. Tell them you're with Merkley, not Republicans/Third Way. Between Pelosi on Medicare and Reid on Social Security, we just might dodge the salvos being launched at Amerca's seniors.
Profile Information
Name: Manny GoldsteinGender: Male
Hometown: Greater Boston
Home country: USA
Current location: Remulak, as far as I can tell
Member since: Tue Aug 30, 2005, 09:44 AM
Number of posts: 34,589