Linoge certainly puts in the effort, I'll say that. A number of times he's written some of the longest comments I've ever seen in response to something I've said. But nothing compares to this.
You may have to go over to his place to see it properly, but you need to go there anyway to read his unbelievably prolix explanation.
When you get to the part about y = -3E-42x6 + 4E-33x5 – 2E-24x4 + 5E-16x3 – 7E-08x2 + 5.3301x – 2E+08, and you're still with him, my hat's off to ya.
In describing the changes between last year's chart and this updated one, twice Linoge assured us that any change "does not affect the accuracy of the data." I'm not sure why it was necessary to repeat that. I don't doubt his data or his honesty. I only doubt his conclusions.
Conclusions: Obviously, both the population of America and the number of firearms in America have been increasing over the past 26 years. Additionally, the number of firearms has been, very slightly, increasing faster than the population.
On the other hand, firearm-related deaths have declined, despite a significant bump in the early 1990s. Those deaths have very slowly started increasing again in the past five years, but at a rate roughly commensurate with the population’s.
And on the third hand, the rate of firearm deaths in relation to both population and number of firearms has been steadily decreasing (with a few bumps, here and there) over the course of the 26 years graphed.
This post graphically demonstrates that the hypothesis that more firearms result in more firearm-related deaths is historically and demonstrably false.
Does anyone else have a problem with that? Please, I'm looking for one pro-gun voice to admit that Linoge is a bit of a bullshitter. I know I risk his ferocious indignation for saying that, as well as that of his legion of fanboys, but I don't know how else to say it.
Can I hear an "aye" from just one pro-gunner?