Missouri gun murders 'rose after law repeal'

[BIG BEAR]

I have the simple solution to the decrease in firearm aggression!
All guns should be sold disassembled and come with plenty of instructions to assemble AND just for the sake of variety,some should be sold with a child proof cap placed over the barrel!
With this solution I've just created another problem and that would be the increase in accidental firearm deaths......DAMNIT!
BB

 

[galfordo]

I have no idea what the graph is saying

The slope of the line gives an indication of how well-correlated the two parameters - if there were a positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates, you would expect the slope to be positive and large in magnitude. If there were a negative correlation, you would expect the correlation to be negative and large in magnitude. As it stands, it is negative and of insignificant magnitude. The value for R^2 gives and indication of how high the correlation is between gun ownership and homicide rates. If there were strong correlation, you would expect this to be close to 1, and for weak correlation - close to 0.

To me, the data is saying that gun ownership does not affect homicide rates either way. They neither make you safe nor put you in additional danger - at least from a macroscopic perspective.

I have a similar graph for all the countries in the world for which this data exists, and it says exactly the same thing. Poverty level, on the other hand, seems to have at least a limited positive correlation with homicide rates.

So, which state is the one dot all the way to the upper left?

That would be Washington DC my good lad! Our nation's capital, our pride and joy.

 

[SNKorSWM]

In an entirely different league all by itself. XD

 

[galfordo]

In an entirely different league all by itself. XD

Breakin' all the rules!

 

[mr aize]

Just have a quick question for the pro-gun guys here. Do none of you think that if it was suddenly illegal to sell any guns in the US, it would make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns? I know there's a shit ton of guns already on the streets, so it would take a really long time but surely that number would steadily decrease as they were confiscated. I'm aware of how enshrined in american culture gun ownership is and how hard it would be to implement such a ban due to destroying the whole gun industry, but putting a pin in those arguements for a second, just completely hypothetically, if it was to happen, does anyone truly believe that it would never have any effect?

 

[OrochiEddie]

Just have a quick question for the pro-gun guys here. Do none of you think that if it was suddenly illegal to sell any guns in the US, it would make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns? I know there's a shit ton of guns already on the streets, so it would take a really long time but surely that number would steadily decrease as they were confiscated. I'm aware of how enshrined in american culture gun ownership is and how hard it would be to implement such a ban due to destroying the whole gun industry, but putting a pin in those arguements for a second, just completely hypothetically, if it was to happen, does anyone truly believe that it would never have any effect?

Potentially more difficult yes, but never impossible since firearems would come from Canada or Mexico.

One of the major issues with the gun debate is simply geography and that we are connected to Mexico which is struggling as a nation to maintain a sense of control or order. Mexico is then connected to Central America and from there South America all of which have political issues, especially the South American countries nearest to central (I.E. Colombia). What this all means is that there is a healthy stream of illegal firearms and narcotics coming into the country (I'd need to find some proper data on a good conclusion as to how severe it is).

Europe has some similar issues, but from a casual observation (and from one at a distance) it is far less of an issue just due to geographic distance between the more hostile nations.

This alone causes plenty of challenging variables to consider in the argument of what to do and what is right. I recently read an article about an imprinting technology that would have all bullet casings imprinted with the gun it was fire from's serial code, making tracking the owner of the discharged gun much easier. Seemed like an interesting idea kind of like a car's VIN number, but as always there are logistical issues.



I'm quite anti-gun, and I've made that known here plenty of times. I have used them before in firing ranges and while I enjoyed those experiences they as a whole freak me out. I'm open to admit that it's based on personal experiences, one of my best friends was killed in a school shooting and it made me think of how powerful they can be. With that said I have also learned (and a lot of that is from people here) about the other side of the argument and that they serve a purpose to responsible owners and most people that own guns are somewhat responsible owners. Do we then punish the responsible individuals by preventing everyone from having them? It's a legitimate argument and one that has not developed a strong conclusion.

I think there is somewhere a healthy medium between control and freedom. What that medium is is challenging to determine. That is really the hardest part about the debate is where do we find a good balance.

 

[mr aize]

Thank you, pretty much summed up my own thoughts on it, (I.e the problem of boarder control) just wanted to get some other opinions. I'd love to know just what the figures are with regards to illegal firearms in the states. Basically, of those illegal firearms, how many of them were stolen, how many were bought legally in the States, then sold on to criminals and how many were smuggled across the border?

On another note, are there any penalties for gun owners who have their guns stolen?

 

[smokehouse]

Just have a quick question for the pro-gun guys here. Do none of you think that if it was suddenly illegal to sell any guns in the US, it would make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns? I know there's a shit ton of guns already on the streets, so it would take a really long time but surely that number would steadily decrease as they were confiscated. I'm aware of how enshrined in american culture gun ownership is and how hard it would be to implement such a ban due to destroying the whole gun industry, but putting a pin in those arguements for a second, just completely hypothetically, if it was to happen, does anyone truly believe that it would never have any effect?

I'm not suggesting I have the solution for this...but if time has taught us anything, it's that banning something only removes it from the hands of the law abiding citizens.

There is a list of illegal drugs as long as my arm and yet it is on nearly every street corner in the US. If all guns were banned in the us, it would make it more difficult, but not impossible. It would only be impossible for the law abiding.

I've often wondered what would happen if they just made all drugs legal...all of them. I'm willing to say crime would fall through the floor and the grip of the gangs/mafia would slip a ton...

I'm sure well never know though, our politicians just keep making more laws although it's crystal clear they do not work in the slightest.

 

[smokehouse]

Thank you, pretty much summed up my own thoughts on it, (I.e the problem of boarder control) just wanted to get some other opinions. I'd love to know just what the figures are with regards to illegal firearms in the states. Basically, of those illegal firearms, how many of them were stolen, how many were bought legally in the States, then sold on to criminals and how many were smuggled across the border?

On another note, are there any penalties for gun owners who have their guns stolen?

Sadly, states are trying to make it that way. You want to exercise your right to own a firearm? Fine. If someone:

-steals it
-accidentally hurts themselves with it
-hurts someone else with it

You're screwed...well make your life a living hell...

Illinois has some absurd law that if your firearm is stolen and you don't report it in a short period of time (I can't recall what it is...48hrs possibly?) you yourself are guilty of a felony. Complete absurdity...

This is what they are going to do...scrape our freedoms so thin that they aren't freedoms anymore. Most politicians save the complete fools know they are not going to ban guns. So, they just apply 4,000,000 sub clauses, laws, fines, taxes, penalties and crimes to them that they will become an insane liability to own. If you sneeze in the wrong direction, they'll lock you up and throw away the key.

Hell...I'm sure it will be a short time until vehicular violations warrant removing someone's right to own a firearm. "Got caught going 60 in a 45?....that's it, turn in your guns criminal!!!"

 

[Lagduf]

On another note, are there any penalties for gun owners who have their guns stolen?

I am aware that several states have tried to pass laws where there would be a penalty for failing to report that a firearm was stolen but not a penalty for simply having a firearm stolen.

It's absurd to penalize a person for having their property stolen assuming the weapon wasn't stolen because an owner was grossly negligent (such as just leaving a loaded weapon in public.)

Just have a quick question for the pro-gun guys here. Do none of you think that if it was suddenly illegal to sell any guns in the US, it would make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns? I know there's a shit ton of guns already on the streets, so it would take a really long time but surely that number would steadily decrease as they were confiscated. I'm aware of how enshrined in american culture gun ownership is and how hard it would be to implement such a ban due to destroying the whole gun industry, but putting a pin in those arguements for a second, just completely hypothetically, if it was to happen, does anyone truly believe that it would never have any effect?

Most certainly if access to arms was restricted in some ways there would simply be fewer outlets for persons to get firearms and I would assume there would be fewer "guns on the streets."

With that said I have also learned (and a lot of that is from people here) about the other side of the argument and that they serve a purpose to responsible owners and most people that own guns are somewhat responsible owners. Do we then punish the responsible individuals by preventing everyone from having them? It's a legitimate argument and one that has not developed a strong conclusion.

The problem with finding a "healthy medium" is that the right to keep (own) and bear (carry in public) firearms is just that; a right specifically enumerated as protected in the Constitution of the United States.

I suppose one could support the militia/collective right argument - but the idea of a collective right is terrifying, particularly if it was applied to other rights.

It's a slippery slope when a person advocates that not all rights are equal.

 

[mr aize]

I've often wondered what would happen if they just made all drugs legal...all of them. I'm willing to say crime would fall through the floor and the grip of the gangs/mafia would slip a ton...

That actually happens to be a point I whole heartedly agree with, I also agree that a prohibition of firearms in the states would not make it impossible for criminals to get access to guns but I think it would have less of a negative impact than the prohibition of drugs. The problem with the 'drug war', is that it criminalises people at every level, right down to the consumer. Many, many people, in fact probably the majority, are drawn into a life of crime because they have to associate with criminals, in order to gain access to drugs. If they happen to get caught, even with a small amount, their lives can be ruined, avenues can be closed off and they get drawn deeper into criminal life as a result.

This would not be the case with a prohibition on guns, since criminals only buy guns, in order to commit crimes. No sane ordinary citizen, is going to go and buy an illegal firearm, just to have an illegal firearm, therefore, your average citizen isn't going to be drawn into a life of crime, the way so many teenagers are, due to drugs.

Anyway, if we take both these arguements, the answer to ending gun violence appears to be obvious. Legalize all drugs and ban all guns, since the majority of violent crime is drug related, removing the criminal element would cut that by an astronomical amount and with less access to readily available firearms, that would cut it even more...

Of course, if someone were to implement both these policies, an awful lot of the hardcore bible toting 'good ol boys' in the NRA would have about 4 heart attacks, which in my humble opinion, pretty much makes it worth doing for that reason alone.

Sadly, states are trying to make it that way. You want to exercise your right to own a firearm? Fine. If someone:

-steals it
-accidentally hurts themselves with it
-hurts someone else with it

You're screwed...well make your life a living hell...

Illinois has some absurd law that if your firearm is stolen and you don't report it in a short period of time (I can't recall what it is...48hrs possibly?) you yourself are guilty of a felony. Complete absurdity...

I'm afraid I actually somewhat agree with this idea. Maybe the time limit is a little short, but to me it makes sense. If you're going to have gun ownership, because it is part of the culture, fair enough, but it has to be responsible gun ownership. I really don't think it's an outrageous idea to make it a condition that people are responsible for the safety of their own firearms. If you're going to have a gun, you have to keep it in a gun safe, when you're not using it. If you're too lazy or stupid to do that, imho, you really shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

I understand the instant opposition people feel, towards any kind of curbs on the right to bear arms, its part of many Americans psyche, freedom democracy etc. I even admire it to a degree but I do feel it gets in the way, when it comes to any kind of sensible suggestions regarding firearms legislation.

 

[hyper]

Just have a quick question for the pro-gun guys here. Do none of you think that if it was suddenly illegal to sell any guns in the US, it would make it harder for criminals to get hold of guns? I know there's a shit ton of guns already on the streets, so it would take a really long time but surely that number would steadily decrease as they were confiscated. I'm aware of how enshrined in american culture gun ownership is and how hard it would be to implement such a ban due to destroying the whole gun industry, but putting a pin in those arguements for a second, just completely hypothetically, if it was to happen, does anyone truly believe that it would never have any effect?

lol

 

[smokehouse]

That actually happens to be a point I whole heartedly agree with, I also agree that a prohibition of firearms in the states would not make it impossible for criminals to get access to guns but I think it would have less of a negative impact than the prohibition of drugs. The problem with the 'drug war', is that it criminalises people at every level, right down to the consumer. Many, many people, in fact probably the majority, are drawn into a life of crime because they have to associate with criminals, in order to gain access to drugs. If they happen to get caught, even with a small amount, their lives can be ruined, avenues can be closed off and they get drawn deeper into criminal life as a result.

This would not be the case with a prohibition on guns, since criminals only buy guns, in order to commit crimes. No sane ordinary citizen, is going to go and buy an illegal firearm, just to have an illegal firearm, therefore, your average citizen isn't going to be drawn into a life of crime, the way so many teenagers are, due to drugs.

I don't necessarily agree with that...

You're conversing with someone who probably would land up having a black market firearm.

Look at it this way; many ask me why I have firearms and my answer is simple.

-I have life insurance
-I have home owner's insurance
-I have health insurance
-I have automobile insurance

Now...I don't plan on getting killed today, or having my home burn down, or coming down with cancer or even totaling my car...but I'm covered nonetheless. Society would consider me prudent, prepared and a good provider for my family.

But my firearms...

I do not hunt, and with the prices of ammo, I rarely shoot anymore either. So why own them?

Riot insurance.

Yup...protection against normal citizens in the case of a mass panic should there be one. I do not have delusions of being some Rambo that can take on the police or military, I'm just a person that feels that should there ever be a mass panic, I can defend myself from common people.

I hope like hell I never have to use it...or my health insurance, or my car insurance...or any other insurance I have. If I do, it's only because something bad has happened. NOT being prepared is not an option however, even if the idiotic government removes my right to legally own a firearm. In other words, I would find a way (and so would many others).

 

[evil wasabi]

I believe most Americans are good people. I would rather keep guns in the hands of good people than to take guns away from good people just because a few bad people were able to obtain them.

 

[mr aize]

I don't necessarily agree with that...

You're conversing with someone who probably would land up having a black market firearm.

Look at it this way; many ask me why I have firearms and my answer is simple.

-I have life insurance
-I have home owner's insurance
-I have health insurance
-I have automobile insurance

Now...I don't plan on getting killed today, or having my home burn down, or coming down with cancer or even totaling my car...but I'm covered nonetheless. Society would consider me prudent, prepared and a good provider for my family.

But my firearms...

I do not hunt, and with the prices of ammo, I rarely shoot anymore either. So why own them?

Riot insurance.

Yup...protection against normal citizens in the case of a mass panic should there be one. I do not have delusions of being some Rambo that can take on the police or military, I'm just a person that feels that should there ever be a mass panic, I can defend myself from common people.

I hope like hell I never have to use it...or my health insurance, or my car insurance...or any other insurance I have. If I do, it's only because something bad has happened. NOT being prepared is not an option however, even if the idiotic government removes my right to legally own a firearm. In other words, I would find a way (and so would many others).

An interesting point and one I feel speaks volumes about the differences between our cultures and societies. I mean no disrespect here, but you guys really are paranoid aren't you? Tbf, to you guys it probably just seems like being prepared, but to the rest of the world it definitely looks like serious paranoia. Hell, you may well be right, to paraphrase a great man, 'Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you'.

I will admit that during the London riots, I went and got the biggest hammer I could find in the tool box and slept with it beside my bed so maybe that's just the same thing? Now that the riots have passed though, it's right back in the tool box. The thought that it's all going to kick off at any second really doesn't trouble me.

As I said though, I mean no disrespect here at all, but how much of a worry is the idea of civil unrest, home invasion etc? I merely ask because I'm fascinated in what causes the differences in the ways people view the world. I did a social anthropology degree (yep, I know, one of the most incredibly impractical degrees ever with regards to getting a job) and so I like trying to put myself in other people's shoes so to speak and try and see things from their perspective.

 

[LoneSage]

An interesting point and one I feel speaks volumes about the differences between our cultures and societies. I mean no disrespect here, but you guys really are paranoid aren't you?

no, just smokehouse.

 

[mr aize]

I believe most Americans are good people. I would rather keep guns in the hands of good people than to take guns away from good people just because a few bad people were able to obtain them.

Another interesting point, which seems to contradict the previous idea. So you'd be more comfortable knowing that your fellow citizens are armed and could come to your aid if some evil person was threatening you?

I have to admit that I feel much more comfortable, knowing that the majority of my fellow citizens aren't tooled up and if I do visit America at some point, it will probably be a pretty disquieting thought for me, knowing that is no longer the case.

 

[mr aize]

no, just smokehouse.

lol. Interesting chap though. Good to debate with.

 

[Karou]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012...duce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Sorry.

I'd like to keep mine thanks. it really sort of seems that

A:criminals don't need guns to for instance kill a bunch of kids
B:criminals can still find firearms where you've banned them and don't have a ''Ton'' of them.
C:criminals seem to be pumped up when they are more sure they can get away with it.

ps:it bugs me that bringing up that 'my' state MN and this problem state MO have the same % of gun owners is so completely dismissed. guns may make it easier for people to commit a crime but they are equally (if not more of) a detterent and I really don't think they create criminal intent on their own at all.

 

[mr aize]

A:criminals don't need guns to for instance kill a bunch of kids
B:criminals can still find firearms where you've banned them and don't have a ''Ton'' of them.
C:criminals seem to be pumped up when they are more sure they can get away with it.

Ok, yes criminals can find guns, when they are banned. I'm not debating that, although in the case of the UK, a lot of the guns on the streets are a result of the ban not being enforced properly, or going far enough. There have been a few cases where people have been caught reboring so called decommissioned firearms. Why on earth they aren't banned, I don't know? Just stupid imo.

I do take issue with your other two points though, since I don't find them to be in agreement with each other. Yes a criminal is going to be more pumped up, when they think they can get away with a crime, to a point... In the case of school massacres, especially in the states, the sick bastards who do these things, are usually incredibly tooled up, simply because they don't think they will get away with it. In fact they are counting on it and just want their gta style shoot out with the cops.

Also, I skimmed over those articles you posted and with regards to the one about gun crime soaring in the UK, just want to point out that we actually have very very little gun crime over here and so it takes an extremely small increase in order to be able to claim that the percentage of gun crimes is soaring, but of course that wouldn't make such a newsworthy article.

As for guns creating criminal intent on their own, of course not, its just that from where I'm looking, they appear more useful to anyone intent on committing a crime than your average citizen. I know for a fact that i'm no Rambo/John Wayne type and so even if I did have a gun, I'd be loath to pull it out to defend myself if there was any possibility of running away or talking my way out of it. In my personal experience, violence generally causes more violence and if there's one thing almost guaranteed to exacerbate the situation, it'd be pulling a gun out.

Anyways, I fully concede that banning guns in the US wouldn't work, since there are already far too many of them in the wrong hands but just as a counter argument, there's no way legalizing them over here would be a good idea. I can absolutely guarantee that the gun crime would go through the roof pretty much instantaneously.

 

[evil wasabi]

Another interesting point, which seems to contradict the previous idea. So you'd be more comfortable knowing that your fellow citizens are armed and could come to your aid if some evil person was threatening you?

I have to admit that I feel much more comfortable, knowing that the majority of my fellow citizens aren't tooled up and if I do visit America at some point, it will probably be a pretty disquieting thought for me, knowing that is no longer the case.

That's your programming. You're programmed to see yourself as surrounded by threats that need to be defanged. And don't worry, most people have been wired the same way, to be companionship models or pleasure bots. But the reality is that there is good and evil, as their is pleasure and pain, beauty and ugliness. These acts of evil, pain, and ugliness, they make everything else feel more good, pleasing, and beautiful.

But yes, the desire of natural programming is to seek equilibrium. To be grey and lifeless. Survival. To simmer the flame of life in order to let life go on forever.

 

[Karou]

, a lot of the guns on the streets are a result of the ban not being enforced properly

[ less than 8 guns not conficated given to and shared by the criminals now? ],

I do take issue with your other two points though, since I don't find them to be in agreement with each other. Yes a criminal is going to be more pumped up, when they think they can get away with a crime, to a point... In the case of school massacres, especially in the states, the sick bastards who do these things, are usually incredibly tooled up, simply because they don't think they will get away with it. In fact they are counting on it and just want their gta style shoot out with the cops.

[how are you so sure they weren't just lashing out, and causing harm regardless of having a firearm is their priority][so you take issue with them,like you disagree or it makes you sad to think about?]

Also, I skimmed over those articles you posted

[go read them their content is more of the point than my opinions based on them]

and with regards to the one about gun crime soaring in the UK, just want to point out that we actually have very very little gun crime over here and so it takes an extremely small increase in order to be able to claim that the percentage of gun crimes is soaring, but of course that wouldn't make such a newsworthy article.

[35% increase of a low stat is alot but you somehow just dismiss it?]

As for guns creating criminal intent on their own, of course not, its just that from where I'm looking, they appear more useful to anyone intent on committing a crime than your average citizen.

[like if they had a hammer and knew you didn't?]

I know for a fact that i'm no Rambo/John Wayne type and so even if I did have a gun, I'd be loath to pull it out to defend myself if there was any possibility of running away or talking my way out of it. In my personal experience, violence generally causes more violence and if there's one thing almost guaranteed to exacerbate the situation, it'd be pulling a gun out.

Anyways, I fully concede that banning guns in the US wouldn't work, since there are already far too many of them in the wrong hands but just as a counter argument, there's no way legalizing them over here would be a good idea. I can absolutely guarantee that the gun crime would go through the roof pretty much instantaneously.

[I for one can imagine a corrlation between disarming Australia and them having a 30%+ increase in rapes while also having no decrease in violent crimes as a pretty strong case against disarming law abiding types, but maybe they didnt have much rape before they banned guns?]

 

[mr aize]

That's your programming. You're programmed to see yourself as surrounded by threats that need to be defanged. And don't worry, most people have been wired the same way, to be companionship models or pleasure bots. But the reality is that there is good and evil, as their is pleasure and pain, beauty and ugliness. These acts of evil, pain, and ugliness, they make everything else feel more good, pleasing, and beautiful.

But yes, the desire of natural programming is to seek equilibrium. To be grey and lifeless. Survival. To simmer the flame of life in order to let life go on forever.

Lol, very poetic.

 

[smokehouse]

An interesting point and one I feel speaks volumes about the differences between our cultures and societies. I mean no disrespect here, but you guys really are paranoid aren't you? Tbf, to you guys it probably just seems like being prepared, but to the rest of the world it definitely looks like serious paranoia. Hell, you may well be right, to paraphrase a great man, 'Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you'.

I will admit that during the London riots, I went and got the biggest hammer I could find in the tool box and slept with it beside my bed so maybe that's just the same thing? Now that the riots have passed though, it's right back in the tool box. The thought that it's all going to kick off at any second really doesn't trouble me.

As I said though, I mean no disrespect here at all, but how much of a worry is the idea of civil unrest, home invasion etc? I merely ask because I'm fascinated in what causes the differences in the ways people view the world. I did a social anthropology degree (yep, I know, one of the most incredibly impractical degrees ever with regards to getting a job) and so I like trying to put myself in other people's shoes so to speak and try and see things from their perspective.

Like I said to Lonesage below...I really do feel were in for it (we as in Americans). I'm not sure how much you pay attention to the US but we are broke...and I mean BROKE. Most states are completely broke and borrowing $$ from a broke national government...which is in debt up to its ears. All it will take is one hiccup in the public aid/city funding system (aka police funding) and shit will hit the fan, trust me.

no, just smokehouse.

I am a bit paranoid...I'll admit it.

But...situations like Detroit are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what most of us are going to get. Broke cities, borrowing from broke states, borrowing from a broke national system.

The flat fact is...we're out of $$. Detroit is a prime example of where we are heading. Cities with no $$ = underfunded police. Add that to low/no public aid due to lack of funds and see where that gets us. Massive civil unrest, high crime and looting.

There are many people looking at our countries finical numbers and seeing we're in for it...I'm one of them.

I believe most Americans are good people. I would rather keep guns in the hands of good people than to take guns away from good people just because a few bad people were able to obtain them.

By in large...they are. We get to hear about the few guns that are used in homicides...but not the VAST majority that are not used in crimes...which is a ton of them.

Now...remove the ability to get food or basic needs from the equation...and see how fast civilized folks turn into uncivilized folks...

 

[mr aize]

go read them their content is more of the point than my opinions based on them

Actually it's your opinion that is more interesting to me, since although I've never met you, I assume you're a fairly ordinary American, rather than a reporter with an agenda. I will try and find time to read them since you've used them as examples of why you are pro gun. Out of interest, did you source these articles because they agree with your personal views or was it reading articles like these that helped form your views? What came first, the chicken or the egg lol.

35% increase of a low stat is alot but you somehow just dismiss it?

Actually, given how much the number of gun murders in the uk goes up and down, it's pretty much a blip, no doubt caused by the recession and will sort itself out before too long. http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html

Also, you're quoting the Daily Mail, which is well known to be completely full of shit.

Afraid I'm not a fan of any argument that tries to use percentages in order to justify itself because it's far too easy to ignore other factors that skew the results.