/k/ - Weapons

This one is one of my favorites

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51776

>as many as 1,000 Americans each year [die from autoerotic asphyxiation]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

>rifle 323

Nobody has heard of teenagers suffocating themselves to achieve arousal, yet the deal rate far exceeds rifles of any kind. Note the FBI's methodology means that 323 is actually overstated: They don't decrease the number of "murders" if that charge latter results in a "not guilty" verdict because of self defense.

Beside that, this essay is always good

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Note that with the credentials he gives, you can actually cite him directly on stuff other than raw-data

>>516330

Post your 12 page paper.

>>516344

Like i said, i lost the file. Its on an old device i no longer have, along with all the other info ive gathered over the years.

>>516472

Id use it, but i need sources.

What happened here? Just a year ago this thread woulda been filled with infographics, databases, charts, etc. but now this boards dead.

>>516472

What country is at 45 per person? Who are the 30-40?

>>516472

Sorry to have to say this; but are you really expecting the sort of people who view 'won't somebody please think of muh chilluns!' as a reasonable argument to respect an incontrovertible mathematical proof?

>>516472

That's not a good chart.

The obvious thing is the lack of sources making it useless, and the MS Office aesthetic means it will be perceived as amateurish, so with the two together it has essentially no impact on anyone who doesn't already believe it.

The other big flaw is that it's unclear what the x-axis actually means, because when discussing gun control it's hugely important to distinguish between speculative counts on all guns, versus only legal guns. It is entirely likely that illegal gun ownership correlates with violent crime, since criminals do criminal things. But gun control affects only legal gun ownership, so that is what should be plotted when discussing gun control. If you include illegal guns, then you've introduced a separate variable that's harmful to your point. A country with many illegal guns, few legal ones, and lots of crime is an argument against gun control, but its position in such a plot would suggest the opposite.

I don't even know which that plot is using, which is a problem in its own right, but it's something that needs to be taken into account when doing things like that, and I would avoid a chart like this if I didn't know for sure it was using the legal gun ownership figures.

>>516628

>>516500

>>516505

Both data sets are publicly available, usually collected by world bank or some such institution. You can google it and wiki tables with a list of sources comes up.

There's even a collated list:

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

Put both data sets in excel and click a button.

SOURCES ARE IMPORTANT WHEN YOU DONT HAVE ACCESS TO A DATA SET AND CANT DO THE EXPERIMENT/ANALYSIS YOURSELF

THIS IS NOT ONE OF THOSE CASES, YOU CAN CHALLENGE EVERY SINGLE PERSON READING YOUR ESSAY TO DO THIS SAME ANALYSIS, WITH EASY TO FOLLOW STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS

Fucking sick of argumentum ad verecandiam.

>>516620

Well no, but your goal shouldn't be to convince the chilluns people. Your goal is just to convince one extra people than is pro gun currently. As long as even one more pro-gun person is created, you won.

>>516640

You're retarded.

Enabling people to repeat your analysis is one of the main reasons you cite what you use. They need to know the data you used is meaningful, and that they can use that data to reproduce your result. If you slap a graph down and say "lol find the data yourself" then you don't deserve to be taken seriously.

>>516762

"It's public knowledge" isn't a fucking source. WHICH public data? When was it gathered? What was their methodology? Was the source the same for all countries? How does methodology differ between countries? Was it all taken at the same time? What errors does it attempt to account for? Every single one of these is important, and not a single one of them can we know unless you say where the data came from.

The fact that all you did was post a Wikipedia link and screech tells me that YOU don't know where that data actually came from. And that Wikipedia page doesn't say either, meaning whoever made the page could have pulled it completely out of their ass, and I'm not too trusting of most Wiki editors' asses.

>if you want rigour you must hate guns

Fuck off.

>>516775

>In the first post I actually told you the sources, provided wiki link.

No, you provided an uncited wiki link, which is worthless. You STILL have not provided a source for the graph's data. The only valid source you have provided, the US-specific one, had nothing to do with the data in question.

And a link-shortened Google search with half a million results does not tell me which of those results went into that graph. The very fact that there are so many results are why you need to say which ones you used.

You have persistently strawmanned my criticism of your methods as disagreement with your result. I have never said your claim cannot be proven, only that you adamantly refuse to do so. In fact, I pointed out a potential flaw (which may or may not affect that plot depending on what data was used) that would make the corrected result even MORE pro-gun.

We can certainly sort through available data, identify what is reliable and consistent across the included countries, and analyse it again to get a similar result. But that still doesn't tell us anything about the original plot; we have simply made a new one using potentially different data and different methods and drawn conclusions from that instead, meaning the original was pointless.

>>516783

This.

… In any case I hope I helped OP.