Religion and Ethics Forum

General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Hope on September 06, 2016, 06:47:33 PM

Title: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: Hope on September 06, 2016, 06:47:33 PM
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting.jpg

This table makes a very interesting read.
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: Nearly Sane on September 06, 2016, 06:49:51 PM
Interesting cut off point in the data
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: Hope on September 06, 2016, 06:55:56 PM
Interesting cut off point in the data
Probably trying to make the point that it isn't terrorists who are to be most feared - but fellow countrymen.  I suspect police killings fit into the last category.  It would certainly be interesting to see that figure separately.
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: floo on September 07, 2016, 08:31:47 AM
It is sad that the Americans cannot comprehend their love affair with guns puts them in more danger not less.
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: jeremyp on September 07, 2016, 08:37:38 AM
Interesting cut off point in the data
The point it is making is not that guns are bad but that the USA has its priorities wrong. In particular, Donald Trump's ideas on immigration are dead wrong.
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: Nearly Sane on September 07, 2016, 10:51:16 AM
The point it is making is not that guns are bad but that the USA has its priorities wrong. In particular, Donald Trump's ideas on immigration are dead wrong.
And while I agree with that I think it would be seen to be more valid if the mist egregious incidents of Islamic terrorism were not excluded by the data. It won't make an overall change to the position that the priorities are wrong but it will avoid any accusations of cherry picking a particular data set to get the answer.
Title: Re: The US and guns - again part 2
Post by: jeremyp on September 07, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
And while I agree with that I think it would be seen to be more valid if the mist egregious incidents of Islamic terrorism were not excluded by the data.

Which ones are missing?

Here's the source with the list used in it.

http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html