Turns out guns do kill people

[libodem]

Meaningful statistics help citizens make informed decisions.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7709884

Hope this gets some exposure and discussion.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Yep

We should do more with our fucked up health care and mental health care system. That would make a great impact as that is the majority of gun deaths. Self inflicted and tell me what proposed gun control measures should help with that.

Guess you did not get much of a response in the other group. It does have very few posters over there.

[libodem]

3. I'm more about the meanful compilation

Of statistics to help people understand the impact of more and more guns.

You are correct about the mental health issues especially for our returning servicemen. They need a convenient method of quick communication to talk them down in a crisis and the resources for the long term treatment of depression.

I fear someone who feels like killing themselves because they feel their life has no value, translates: therefore no one else's life is worth much either. I worry they may feel that murdering their loved ones is doing them a favor by saving them from the world. I worry they may take out a few randomly selected strangers because they are meaningless in comparison. If someone no longer values their own life other lives may be endangered.

[Duckhunter935]

5. I see your point

I think that is quite rare and could be pretty much eliminated if we had better mental health care treatment and refrained from the candy store drug approach the VA tends to use now for our returning vets.

[gejohnston]

9. The DoJ through the NIJ has been doing that

the problem for gun control advocates is that the studies are done by real scientists doing real studies and submitting them for peer review in criminology publications. Most of the time, it isn't the results Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign likes. That is how respected criminologists like Gary Kleck, Lawrence Southwick, Peter Rossi, and David Wright get called NRA shills.

[Travis_0004]

2. If you remove suicides from the list, the chart looks vastly different.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

I don't think Vermont, Iowa, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota Maine and Utah are well known for extreemly restricvive gun bans yet are among the safest places.

And with the most super restrictive laws, California isn't in the top 50%.

I'm not saying suicides shouldn't be addressed, but the implication from this article is more strict gun laws will save lives.

How is a 7 mag limit like in New York going to stop suicides. 1 gun a month laws?

Even if the only guns allowed were single shot pistols, there would still be just as many suicides, and the second admendment is not going anywhere, and there will not be a total gun ban.

[Duckhunter935]

4. Can you please share your thoughts

I recieved a PM from a member that say you are very sincere and would indeed like to have a good discussion.

My apologies for seaming curt but there are some that just post cut and paste spam here without commenting or discussion.

[Duckhunter935]

6. I see your responce to Fred

In the other group. A small point of contention I have is your comment on the CDC. There is nothing that says they can not compile statistics or perform gun related studies. The law just says they are not allowed to advocate a position and must be neutral. They did do a study on guns for President Obama at his request. One thing you will find is the difference in these two groups. This one allows all points of view and the other one is a "safe haven" that limits debate. Please look at the number of blocked poster in the about group link for each group.

Thank you Fred

I've long been concerned that the NRA has suppressed meaningful compilation of statistics by the CDC to repress meaningful relevant facts from informing the public.

I can see that even it its big current news it causes a contagion of article wars in the big public forums. This is the place for us to talk about it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629246

[ileus]

7. We're about to head to the range.

With four of our newest rifles and my newest pistol.

3 are 22's that belonged to my father, and the fourth is my latest SD pistol.


Should be a fun evening of shooting...my prediction is another uneventful evening of our guns not killing people.

[gejohnston]

8. The problem is none of these are meaningful statistics

None of the studies are done by criminologists or published in peer review publications in that area. All of them are public health published in public health. Done by people with no training in the scientific method, reviewed by people with no training in the scientific method. The latest one on CT by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, yes that Bloomberg, is the worst since Kellerman or what one of my favorite ethics blogs calls "The Washington Post’s “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” Gun Control Deceit"
http://ethicsalarms.com/2015/06/14/the-washington-posts-post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc-gun-control-deceit/

Everything else is one sided claims from Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising. Citing the Brady Campaign is like citing the NRA, and should be taken just as seriously.

Meaningful statistics means accurate. It ignores studies done by criminologists and sociologists showing the benefits of gun ownership, not to mention the environmental benefits.

Meaningful means accurate and unbiased. That is not something you will find from any advocacy group or HuffPo.

[jimmy the one]

18. one sided claims from the J man

Johnston: The problem is none of these are meaningful statistics .. None of the studies are done by criminologists or published in peer review publications in that area. All of them are public health published in public health. Done by people with no training in the scientific method, reviewed by people with no training in the scientific method.

Baloney johnston; those gun control studies are done by professionals with accurate statistics & reasoning which have generally, time after time, borne out to be factual & truthful, something sorely amiss in your pro gun culture of disinformation & misinformation (which Johnston hereby demonstrates).

Johnston: Everything else is one sided claims from Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising. Citing the Brady Campaign is like citing the NRA, and should be taken just as seriously.

Yet 3 of the 4 links which Johnston cites, are from 'one sided' apparently right wing pro gun sources, a right wing author from 'ethics alarms', 'arms and the law', as well as right leaning democrat gary kleck's 'point blank' book via amazon.

Johnston's amazon link cites kleck, perhaps referring to Johnston's post #8: It is doubtful, however, whether most gun debates are worth listening to. Not surprisingly, such debates generally leave their participants exactly where they began, with their biases intact, and onlookers perplexed.

Johnston: Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising

Johnston's corpus delicti? a progun website's personal opinion likely with incomplete info: "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has raised about $5 million since late December, a spokeswoman for the group told POLITICO... The $5 million haul is close to double what the group pulled in 2010, according to the most recent tax documents available. That year, their total revenue was $2.8 million." But if you look at Brady's - total fundraising for 2012 was $4.8 million, and for 2013 was $4.2 million. (That's gross: net would be those figures minus fundraising expenses of $1 million and $800,000 respectively). So the surge in funding Brady claimed was in fact more than it brought in total for either year in question. And the 2013 claim was that the cash had come in "since late December (2012)," but in fact 2013 saw a fundraising decline of 13%.

here's the author of the above half-***ed tripe, importuning readers to 'join the nra online!': I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars {inter alios, gun gurus} Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here..additional orders only $10 each http://armsandthelaw.com/aboutus.php ... atty David Hardy. He argues the individual rights model of the Second Amendment

One of Johnston's other links comes from ethics alarms, which starts off with climate change denial: If you want a graphic example of why climate change skeptics distrust—and are right to distrust— the studies and computer models on the subject indicating that we are doomed unless we adopt Draconian measures, look no further than the Washington Posts’ embarrassing story on a study released this week in the American Journal of Public Health. It is deceptive, biased, misleading and incompetent from the headline: “Gun killings fell by 40% after Connecticut passed this law.”

This link from 'ethics alarms' links to a study which supposedly 'debunks' AJPH, one 'crime prevention research center' which despite its official sounding name, appears rightwing, for on its front page website: John Lott has a new piece at Fox News on Lynne Russell and her husband defending themselves with a gun. We see these stories every day, some of the heroic actions caught on video and others where the criminal is killed, but you would never know it, because the national media continually ignore them. To illustrate how common such defense is, consider a few other cases that occurred over the last week where permitted concealed handguns stopped crimes http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/

So get off that high horse Johnston, stop pretending you're interested in anything but 'one sided claims' yourself.

[gejohnston]

19. 2 pages of substance free horse shit

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 10:16 AM - Edit history (2)

Seriously, I copied and pasted it to word. Two pages. That's more horse shit than a high school rodeo championships that came to my county last year. That is kids and horses from across US, Canada, and Australia.

Baloney johnston; those gun control studies are done by professionals with accurate statistics & reasoning which have generally, time after time, borne out to be factual & truthful, something sorely amiss in your pro gun culture of disinformation & misinformation (which Johnston hereby demonstrates).

Let me guess, you took the same critical thinking class as Pierce Morgan? If that is true, then why didn't they submit them for peer review and publication in a sociology or criminology journal?

Yet 3 of the 4 links which Johnston cites, are from 'one sided' apparently right wing pro gun sources, a right wing author from 'ethics alarms', 'arms and the law', as well as right leaning democrat gary kleck's 'point blank' book via amazon.

Can't refute the argument, so you attack the person? Mr. Marshal isn't right or left wing. He does a good job of calling out stupidity and dishonesty on both sides. Or is that the problem you have with him? Ethics for thee but not me? I don't know about you Jimmy, but I believe in basic principles about ethics and class and I do my best to follow them. I don't have time for those who don't regardless of who they vote for or what flag they fly. I'm really priggish about that. That is why I like to read his blog.
Where do you get the idea that Gary Kleck is "right leaning"? Are you saying science should be politicized? Dr. Kleck is a professional whose statistics and reason were so flawless that the book earned the 1993 Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology for "making the most outstanding contribution to criminology."

here's the author of the above half-***ed tripe, importuning readers to 'join the nra online!': I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars {inter alios, gun gurus} Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here..additional orders only $10 eachhttp://armsandthelaw.com/aboutus.php ... atty David Hardy. He argues the individual rights model of the Second Amendment 

He provided the link to the Politico article where Brady made the claim, and another link to Brady's IRS 990 form that told the agency something different. Granted, I could have just pasted those links, but I figured I would give you something to type about.

While I'm not a fan of John Lott's politics, his critique is at least substantive and based on the facts and methods of the study, which is more than what I can say for you. Can you defend the study based on the merits? The fact is, it is a junk study. Bloomberg funded junk studies like that make real scientists look bad. Most people will see shit like the WaPo logical fallacy and jump to conclusions about valid studies about, say, climate change. That was Marshall's point.

So get off that high horse Johnston, stop pretending you're interested in anything but 'one sided claims' yourself.

I didn't say anything about "one sided claims" Jimmy, I said accurate and unbiased. While Kleck is accurate and unbiased, Lott is biased and (in his critique of this example of "finding results to fit the pre decided conclusion"/post hoc ergo propter hoc) accurate. Is that too much nuance for you?

[jimmy the one]

23. hiding in plain sight

johnston: I didn't say anything about "one sided claims" Jimmy, I said accurate and unbiased.

Johnston's post 8: Everything else is one sided claims from Brady Campaign, who can't even tell the truth about fundraising.

You're losing it, can't remember what you wrote even when it's in plain sight.

Johnston: Mr. Marshal isn't right or left wing. He does a good job of calling out stupidity and dishonesty on both sides. Or is that the problem you have with him? Ethics for thee but not me?

I didn't see marshal's name on your source article yday, tho I saw his Harvard creds, some fringe elements from Harvard surely exist. You can say with surety marshal wrote that piece? I presumed it was probably by someone else: Jack Marshall, the primary writer of Ethics Alarms. What does 'primary writer' tell you Johnston?

Johnston: Where do you get the idea that Gary Kleck is "right leaning"?

Most buyers of kleck's books are right wing republicans (ie gun owners & families) or significantly far right. He appeals to the right.

I believe in basic principles about ethics and class and I do my best to follow them.

This has got to be the biggest bunch of baloney I've read today. You consistently post pro gun biased studies & spin them as gospel, & refute far more valid studies from guncontrol side, as you've tried to do by citing two BLOGs.

[gejohnston]

24. cat farts

You're losing it, can't remember what you wrote even when it's in plain sight.

OK, so how about a more accurate description: DISHONEST. They either lied to Politico readers or the IRS. Their record with politifact is actually worse than Fox News.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/brady-campaign-prevent-gun-violence/

Most buyers of kleck's books are right wing republicans (ie gun owners & families) or significantly far right. He appeals to the right.

Can you provide evidence or are you just making shit up as usual?

[the band leader]

10. correlation does not imply causation.

let's just start with Alaska, at the top of your list. Alaska has one of the highest suicide rates in America and had a grand total of 19 gun murders in 2013. 19 gun murders. compare that to Maryland (which is conveniently not listed in the graph btw) where you will find some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and where 299 gun homicides occurred in 2013 despite those tough laws. California, also known for its tough gun laws, had 1,312 gun homicides in 2013.

What's more, the gun violence in any given state is almost exclusively limited to a few very large cities in those states and revolves around gangs and drugs, again, almost exclusively. The people committing these murders are not going to be affected by gun control laws one bit nor are the people they're murdering.

This research is utterly worthless and serves as an example of why federal tax payer dollars may not be used to fund this kind of propaganda.

[jimmy the one]

15. murder she wrote

the duplicitous band leader: Alaska .. had a grand total of 19 gun murders in 2013... compare that to Maryland where you will find some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and where 299 gun homicides occurred in 2013 despite those tough laws. California, also known for its tough gun laws, had 1,312 gun homicides in 2013.

.. for a fair comparison aren't you forgetting to put those stats per capita? Alaska has only ~700,000 peeps, while Maryland 6 million, California 39 million (~2014); That Alaska's largest city anchorage 300,000 population would fit in Baltimore's small corner?
Deceptive Band Leader cherry picks two guncontrol states & thinks he's proven something. Using 2010 stats, Maryland is ranked 33rd amongst states with highest gun death rates, Md being the highest ranking guncontrol state. I count at least 28 PRO GUN states with higher gundeath rates than Maryland (other 4 lean gun or neutralish imo).

States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates ALL PRO GUN STATES
(Rank ..Household Gun Ownership .. Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)
1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 18.91
2 Mississippi 54.3 percent 17.80
3 Alaska 60.6 percent 17.41
4 Wyoming 62.8 percent 16.92
5 Montana 61.4 percent 16.74

States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates ALL GUNCONTROL STATES
(Rank .. Household Gun Ownership .. Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)
50 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 3.14
49 Hawaii 9.7 percent 3.56
48 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.84
47 New York 18.1 percent 5.11
46 New Jersey 11.3 percent 5.46

highest gundeath states & rates: 1 Louisiana 18.91 2 Mississippi 17.80 3 Alaska 17.41 4 Wyoming 16.92 5 Montana 16.74 6 Oklahoma 16.60 7 Alabama 16.34 8 Arkansas 15.72 9 South Carolina 15.09 10 West Virginia 14.99 11 Arizona 14.91 12 Tennessee 14.81 13 New Mexico 14.72 14 Missouri 14.21 15 Kentucky 14.13 16 Nevada 13.82 17 Georgia 12.56 18 Florida 12.46 19 Vermont 12.45 20 Idaho 12.12 21 North Carolina 11.96 22 Michigan 11.70 23 Kansas 11.46 24 Pennsylvania 11.28 25 Colorado 11.20 26 Utah 10.94 27 Oregon 10.86 28 Virginia 10.71 29 Ohio 10.63 30 Maine 10.24 31 Texas 10.14 32 Indiana 33 Maryland http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart14.htm

band leader: The people committing these murders are not going to be affected by gun control laws one bit nor are the people they're murdering.

After viewing states gundeath statistics in full, rather than just the index of Alaska Md & calif, do you realize now how wrong your remark is? even gun guru gary kleck contends gun control will have a marginal positive affect on gun violence (~30% reduction iirc), & background checks & wait periods have been shown effective at reducing gun violence, so I must assume you don't really know what you're talking about, band leader.

band leader: This research is utterly worthless and serves as an example of why federal tax payer dollars may not be used to fund this kind of propaganda.

The research demonstrates efficacy of gun control & exposes 2nd amendment mythology, so of course, to you, it's 'utterly worthless'. But to most all other democrats, it's more plausible & the better approach, than yours.

Maryland did rank higher in murder rates, 2013, assume approx. 65% done by gun:
NATIONWIDE MURDER RATES 2013: Louisiana 10.8 Alabama 7.2 Mississippi 6.5 Maryland 6.4
Michigan 6.4 South Carolina 6.2 Missouri 6.1 New Mexico 6.0 Nevada 5.8
Georgia 5.6 Illinois 5.5 Arizona 5.4 Arkansas 5.4 Indiana 5.4 Oklahoma 5.1 Florida 5.0 Tennessee 5.0 North Carolina 4.8Pennsylvania 4.7 Alaska 4.6 California 4.6 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

[the band leader]

20. 43 total homicides in Alaska versus 234 homicides in Baltimore, Maryland.

Maryland as a whole had 299 homicides in 2013, that being the case, 78% of all Maryland homicides were concentrated in Baltimore, a city with a population of approximately 620,000 people. In 2013, Baltimore had a rate of ~37.7 murders per 100,000 people and Alaska has a rate of ~5.85 homicides per 100,000 people. Alaska has lax gun control. Baltimore has draconian gun control. Gun control doesn't work obviously.


That this needs to be explained to you like this is evidence of your own refusal to face facts. It is also evidence that the chart put forth to support the claim that "guns do kill people" is not at all an accurate depiction of reality as this same trend holds true in every state you and they have referred to. Homicides are concentrated in cities and they reovolve around drugs and drug dealers. period. Trying to draw conclusions about the efficasy of state gun control laws based on the events occurring in gang and drug infested cities is an exercise in obfuscation and deception.

what's more, you and they are deceptively conflating suicides with homicdes in order to support your premises. this is further evidence of the specious nature of your arguments. suicide is an entirely different matter.

and so you don't think I'm cherry picking data, there were 40 homicides in Boston, Massachusetts in 2013 which gives them a rate of 6.10 homicides per 100,000 people which is still higher than the entire state of Alaska. There were a total of 246 shootings in Boston in 2013 incidentally which equates to 37.56 shooting per 100,000 people which is actually pretty high, especially considering all the, you know, gun control.

[jimmy the one]

22. apples to oranges

Last edited Tue Jul 7, 2015, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

band leader: In 2013, Baltimore had a rate of ~37.7 murders per 100,000 people and Alaska has a rate of ~5.85 homicides per 100,000 people. Alaska has lax gun control. Baltimore has draconian gun control. Gun control doesn't work obviously

Ridiculous reasoning, inane comparison. You pick the largest state & contrast it with Baltimore city, & conclude that gun control 'doesn't work obviously'. What obviously doesn't work is your reasoning regarding statistical demographics, as you compare apples to oranges. Hawaii has a much lower murder rate than progun Houston, would that prove to you that gun control does work then?
The chart compared states with states, not states with cities. Baltimore is a city, Alaska is a state, it is rare anything meaningful can be obtained by comparing a state with a city wrt guncontrol.

Alaska has a population density of 1 person per square mile, population density of Baltimore ~7,672/sqmi. Anchorage Alaska has a population density ~171/sqmi.
Baltimore's population ~625,000, anchorage ~300,000, Alaska ~700,000.
Baltimore ~66% black, 34% white, Asian, Hispanic et al. Anchorage 5% black, 95% the rest. Anchorage & Alaska do not have the racial problems larger cities in conus do.

band leader: what's more, you and they are deceptively conflating suicides with homicdes in order to support your premises. this is further evidence of the specious nature of your arguments. suicide is an entirely different matter.

More ridiculous reasoning; the chart was intended to compare total gun death rates by state, & is not being 'deceptive' in any way... the chart title clearly includes 'High Gun Death Rates'.

band leader: It is also evidence that the chart put forth to support the claim that "guns do kill people" is not at all an accurate depiction of reality as this same trend holds true in every state you and they have referred to.

What trend holds true? city murder rate is higher then rest of state?

band leader: Trying to draw conclusions about the efficasy of state gun control laws based on the events occurring in gang and drug infested cities is an exercise in obfuscation and deception.

An exercise in obfuscation & deception? You have the nerve to say that after you compared the whole state of Alaska with Baltimore the city?
There is the other method of comparing efficacy of gun control, & that is by city, as I've done on another thread for a few. You seem to think a comparison of statewide gun death is somehow illicit & deceptive, when it is not, it is a valid method of comparison.

band leader: .. there were 40 homicides in Boston in 2013 which gives them a rate of 6.10 homicides per 100,000 people which is still higher than the entire state of Alaska.

So what? Boston is an urbanized area, Alaska is not. New York City in 2012 murder rate was 5.1, lower than the chart's whole state of Alaska at 5.85 - proves little comparative wise, gun control works for new York city.
Anchorage with it's population density of 171 is almost the same as the entire state of new York, that is how utterly ridiculous your comparison is, even if you were to limit it to anchorage.

All of these emboldened pro gun states have 2012 murder rates higher than the whole state of Alaska for that year, dunno what you think you've proven: 57.6 New Orleans2011; Houston 10.0; Dallas 12.4; St Louis 35; Baltimore 35; New York city 5.1;

[the band leader]

25. one group of people compared to another group of people

You pick the largest state & contrast it with Baltimore city, & conclude that gun control 'doesn't work obviously'.
I picked one population and compared it to another population of the same approximate size. There is nothing 'apples and oranges" about it. Maryland and thus, Baltimore, are known to have an above average level of gun control whereas Alaska has minimal gun control laws. Despite a higher degree of gun control, Baltimore has a rate of homicide that is 6 times greater than the entire state of Alaska. The obvious conclusion is that Maryland state's gun control have not actually reduced firearm homicides.

Anchorage & Alaska do not have the racial problems larger cities in conus do.
Would you care to elaborate on that?

You seem to think a comparison of statewide gun death is somehow illicit & deceptive, when it is not, it is a valid method of comparison.

When your data concludes that you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence in Alaska than in New York or California, your data is deceptive.

New York City in 2012 murder rate was 5.1, lower than the chart's whole state of Alaska at 5.85
And you accuse me of comparing apples to oranges? Yet again, you are conflating suicide data with homicide data in order to produce a deceptive conclusion. The whole state of Alaska had a rate of 2.33 firearms homicides per 100,000 people in 2012 compared to New York city where 237 people were murdered by a firearm in 2012 for a rate of 2.84 GUN HOMICIDES per 100,000 people. To put that in perspective, More people are murdered with a gun in 1 year in New York than in approximately 10 years in Alaska. It is also worth noting that there were 1,352 shootings in NYC in 2012. Tell me again how gun control is reducing gun violence in NYC. Oh, they didn't die so it doesn't count. Is that it?

Anchorage with it's population density of 171 is almost the same as the entire state of new York, that is how utterly ridiculous your comparison is, even if you were to limit it to anchorage.
Well, Salon seems to think it isn't so ridiculous because they are the ones that produced this ridiculous graph that suggests you are more likely to get shot in Alaska than in Baltimore, MD, Boston. MA, Los Angeles, CA or Harlem, NY


All of these emboldened pro gun states have 2012 murder rates higher than the whole state of Alaska for that year, dunno what you think you've proven: 57.6 New Orleans2011; Houston 10.0; Dallas 12.4; St Louis 35; Baltimore 35; New York city 5.1;
I have proven that gun violence in concentrated in large cities and is perpetrated by criminals who have a complete disregard for gun control laws and that you are not more safe in California, New York, Illinois, or Maryland or Massachusetts thanks to their gun control laws despite what Huffington post implies. I have also proven that the gun control crowd is lying and deceitful.


I have also shown that gun control doesn't really reduce the murder rate but this has long been established. Don't believe me, take it from Harvard University: Harvard gun study concludes gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate In fact, it appears, bans may actually see them increase.

[jimmy the one]

27. apples to apples

band leader: I picked one population and compared it to another population of the same approximate size. There is nothing 'apples and oranges" about it. Maryland and thus, Baltimore, are known to have an above average level of gun control whereas Alaska has minimal gun control laws.

You're obviously a novice at this. No reputable criminologist would agree with you whatsoever.
You make an invalid comparison, taking rural Alaska & contrasting it with urbanized Maryland & then you reach inane conclusions about the efficacy of gun control laws. Rural areas generally do not need the same gun control as it is applied in urbanized cities & states, since rural living conditions are not the same as in america's larger cities. Coyotes, mtn lions, wolves do not roam the streets of nyc, and there aren't 4,000 stranger neighbors within walking distance of a westerner's ranch.

band leader: Despite a higher degree of gun control, Baltimore has a rate of homicide that is 6 times greater than the entire state of Alaska. The obvious conclusion is that Maryland state's gun control have not actually reduced firearm homicides.

That's a silly cherry pick. Baltimore, or almost any other large city, will have a larger homicide rate than a state.
And you're not supported by Maryland stats: 1993 murder rate = 12.7; 2000 = 8.1; 2013 = 6.4

Let's put Alaska in perspective with other gun control states, year 2013, all rates:

............. pop ........ violcr .. prop ..murd // rape .. robb.. asslt .. burg .. larc .. auto .. inmates
Alaska ..... 735,132 .. 602 .. 2,885 .. 4.6 // .. 87... 84 .. 425 .. 396 .. 2,258 .. 230 .. 364
Maryland 5,928,814 .. 467 .. 2,663 .. 6.4 // .. 19 .. 169 .. 272 .. 538 .. 1,898 .. 226 .. 352

Mass..... 6,692,824.. 404 .. 2,051 .. 2.0 // .. 31 .. 100 .. 270 .. 459 .. 1,455 .. 136 .. 192
Calif ... 38,332,521 .. 396 .. 2,658 .. 4.6 // .. 19 .. 139 .. 232 .. 605 .. 1,621 .. 431 .. 353
NY state 19,651,127 .. 389 .. 1,824 .. 3.3 // .. 13 .. 138 .. 234 .. 287 .. 1,458 .. 78 .. 271
Illinois .. 12,882,135 .. 372 .. 2,274 .. 5.5
Connect.. 3,596,080 .. 254 .. 1,974 .. 2.4
New Jers 8,899,339 ... 285 .. 1,882 .. 4.5
Hawaii .. 1,404,054 .. 245 .. 3,053 .. 1.5

Every single gun control state fares better than Alaska with respect to violent crime rate & property rate (Hawaii exc prop, at parity), and only Illinois & Md have a higher murder rate than Alaska, while NJ & Calif are at parity wrt murder rate.

Normally, a rural state has much smaller crime & murder rates than pro gun Alaska 2013. So for all these gun control states to perform better with violent crime & property crime rates, is quite astounding.
Furthermore, rhode island has a similar population as Alaska, and RI has the highest population density of any state at ~1,000 people per sq mile while Alaska has the lowest at 1 person/sq mile, yet rhode island has the lower violent crime & murder & property rates.

Alaska ..... 735,132 .. 602 .. 2,885 .. 4.6 // .. 87... 84 .. 425 .. 396 .. 2,258 .. 230 .. 364
Rh Isl ... 1,051,511 .. 244 .. 2,442 .. 2.9 // .. 29 .. 65 .. 147 .. 533 .. 1,696 .. 212 .. 193
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/2013%20Rate%20and%20Rank%20of%20Crime%20and%20Imprisonment%20by%20US%20States.html

Now what do you have to say, hotshot?

[jimmy the one]

28. better sit down, BL

band leader: When your data concludes that you are more likely to be a victim of gun violence in Alaska than in New York or California, your data is deceptive.

Better sit down, band leader. It is TRUE that one is more likely to be a victim of violent crime & gun violence in Alaska, than in new York or California. That's what a RATE indicates.

band leader: The whole state of Alaska had a rate of 2.33 firearms homicides per 100,000 people in 2012 compared to New York city where 237 people were murdered by a firearm in 2012 for a rate of 2.84 GUN HOMICIDES per 100,000 people. To put that in perspective, More people are murdered with a gun in 1 year in New York than in approximately 10 years in Alaska

Disregarding that New York has about 30 times more people than Alaska. And that NYC is the largest city in America with 7 million people, more people than in Alaska, Montana, both Dakotas, Vermont, new Hampshire & maine combined (about).
Ask icon if you can borrow 'Statistics for Dummies'.

bl: Salon seems to think it isn't so ridiculous because they are the ones that produced this ridiculous graph that suggests you are more likely to get shot in Alaska than in Baltimore, MD, Boston. MA, Los Angeles, CA or Harlem, NY

The graph does not suggest what you contend above, you LIE. It does not suggest that whatsoever, those cities are not on the graph. Cities generally cannot be compared to states as you do, especially not Alaska.

band leader: I have proven that gun violence in concentrated in large cities and is perpetrated by criminals who have a complete disregard for gun control laws and that you are not more safe in California, New York, Illinois, or Maryland or Massachusetts thanks to their gun control laws despite what Huffington post implies.

No you haven't done that, except to yourself I suppose, delusionary.

I have also proven that the gun control crowd is lying and deceitful.

You've posted a half dozen lies & misconceptions & much disinformation, & an appalling incompetence in translating demographic comparisons, so your above sentence becomes just another demonstrable lie.

[jimmy the one]

29. harvard conservatives

band leader: I have also shown that gun control doesn't really reduce the murder rate but this has long been established. Don't believe me, take it from Harvard University: Harvard gun study concludes gun bans don’t reduce the murder rate In fact, it appears, bans may actually see them increase.

You're not the first to try to slip this fast one upon readers, I've caught it before. It's just some conservative affiliates or whatever tacking on 'harvard' to embellish their title, but they're just right wing cretins, more or less:

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy is a student-edited law review of conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. It was established by Harvard Law School students Spencer Abraham and Stephen Eberhard in 1978, leading to the founding of the Federalist Society, for which it is the official journal.
... Notable authors include Guido Calabresi, Ted Cruz, Viet D. Dinh, Frank H. Easterbrook, John C. Eastman, Richard Garnett, Robert George, Douglas H. Ginsburg, Lino Graglia, Alex Kozinski, George L. Priest, William H. Pryor, Jr., William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Eugene Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ron Paul, and John Yoo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Journal_of_Law_and_Public_Policy

band leader: I have also proven that the gun control crowd is lying and deceitful.

Yet here you are deceitfully trying to pass off a pro-gun study as emanating from a liberal think tank, from Harvard.

[the band leader]

26. Anchorage & Alaska do not have the racial problems larger cities in conus do.

I'm truly curious about this statement. What are you implying here. Please, elaborate.

[jimmy the one]

16. an inconvenient truth, for band leader

band leader: correlation does not imply causation.

That's better read: Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other. The counter-assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

As well: The idea that correlation and causation are connected is certainly true; where there is causation, there is a likely correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point is that such inferences are made after correlations are confirmed as real and all causational relationship are systematically explored using large enough data sets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

So what is it you're trying to prove band leader? that the strong correlation between higher gun death rates with higher firearm ownership rates means there is NO causative affect by the increased ownership of guns? That's a pretty weak assumption you make there, in light of where there's smoke there's fire.

band leader: compare that to Maryland (which is conveniently not listed in the graph btw)

There were 32 other states which were also not spelled out in the graph, they apparently took extremes from the 4 sidesof the graph E-N-W-S. It wasn't duplicitously 'convenient' since the map listed maryland in the 20-25% range. You make a pathetic smear attempt at the study methodology.
Didn't you, band leader, 'conveniently' cite simply gun murder totals for Alaska, Maryland, & California? rather than the correct comparative method of per capita rates?

band leader: This research is utterly worthless..

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[the band leader]

21. your circumlocutious nonsense does not advance your argument.

I have clearly illustrated the multiple errors in your argument and in the methodology of this data i.e. conflation of suicide with homicide and the use of per 100,000 rates for states to muddle the reality of violent crime in drug and gang infested cities.

deal with it.

[Fred Sanders]

11. 340 million guns. 32,000 gun-related deaths per year, 100,000+ major injuries. Irrefutable.

Deflection.

Denial.

Distortion.

Let me guess what the somber replies from the gun-lovers will be.

And all they really want is acceptance at DU as full, loved members.....there is a way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. Improved mental healthcare would go a long way. Could we discuss that?

Oh, wait, that's right. You've ignored because acceptance.

[pablo_marmol]

13. And the fact that correlation *does not* equal causation is also irrefutable.

So you can deflect and deny all you want -- your behavior is precisely why gun owners open their wallets and defeat you.

EDITED TO ADD: Many folks of "progressive" persuasion LOVE the scientific approach to solving problems, until said approach collides with their blind hate.

[pablo_marmol]

14. Blah, blah, blah. Turns out guns actually save people as well.

So says the NRA and Pablo Marmol? No. So says an award-winning liberal criminologist, and several surveys that back him up. Including one by pro-restriction supporters Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig:

http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1436162215&sr=1-1&keywords=targeting+guns+firearms+and+their+control

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[ileus]

17. Guns are designed to save/protect...some can't accept that fact.