Are gun control advocates their own worst enemy?

[Jack Burton]

The same people who want to control or ban guns are the same ones destroying our country in every other way from within, turning our culture into a degenerate cesspool and allowing unlimited immigration from the Third World. They are evil snakes, who use faux morality to brainwash people and control them. The Devil himself couldn't do it any better.

There is no compromising protecting yourself, your family and your country from tyranny.

When anti-white liberal scum first proposed changing immigration laws, they said it wouldn't change racial demographics. Not only has it drastically changed demographics, they boast about it and celebrate the change. Liberals are pure evil.

[TZucchini]

Australia's stringent licensing policies had no noticeable impact on homicides. Britain's homicide rates actually increased following the gun bans.

Those are all very interesting points that have absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between firearms and homicide/suicide/crime. You're taking two raw data points and implying that there's some relationship there. You need to control for several variables to eliminate any confounders.

When this is done, you find robust, significant correlations between access to firearms and increases in homicide/suicide.

[Giscoicus]

Those are all very interesting points that have absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between firearms and homicide/suicide/crime. You're taking two raw data points and implying that there's some relationship there. You need to control for several variables to eliminate any confounders.

When this is done, you find robust, significant correlations between access to firearms and increases in homicide/suicide.

Care to link an example of when it is done?

[Mormolyce]

Australia's stringent licensing policies had no noticeable impact on homicides.

Australia's gun buyback scheme was in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and intended to curb similar massacres, not the homicide rate.

In that you can only say it was extremely successful, considering there has not been a single gun massacre in Australia since it was introduced.

In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings; since then, there has not been a single mass shooting and the gun murder rate has continued its steady decline.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/ca...control-2013-1

Incidentally homicide =/= firearm related deaths.

"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."

After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."

As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."

http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

Britain's homicide rates actually increased following the gun bans.

It's hardly surprising that gun control failed to curb the UK's homicide rate in the 90s because the majority of homicides in the UK were committed with knives to begin with.



Worth noting that even during its largest spike, the homicide rate per 100k population was less than half the rate in the US. The current rate is less than a quarter.

The UK has also had only one mass shooting since the 1997 gun bans. Which AGAIN, were in the wake of a horrific mass shooting (Dunblane school massacre) and that's what they were designed to reduce.

[Giscoicus]

Absolutely.

Oh wait, I thought you said gun rights advocates. Now those guys really know how to make their side of the argument look like a bunch of nutjobs.



Sounds reasonable and not paranoid at all lol.



Absolutely, but they can't because those dastardly anti-gun lobbyists are just too evil. You can see why they have to be completely intransigent right?

Or the fact that since the 2nd ammendment was written we have already seen a load of gun-control passed in the country. Saying "compromise" is fine when its gonna be some give and take on both sides. But its been take take tak bit by bit over our nations history, there wont be any give from the anti-gun groups, there never has been. "We will only take a little this time if you let us take it" is not a compromise by any stretch of the imagination.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Australia's stringent licensing policies had no noticeable impact on homicides. Britain's homicide rates actually increased following the gun bans.

My point was that when their gun crime was already ridiculously small to begin with due to stringent gun control laws already in place, another wave of new laws or buybacks (which is what the Aussie one was) isn't going to have any noticeable affect.

[Giscoicus]

Australia's gun buyback scheme was in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and intended to curb similar massacres, not the homicide rate.

In that you can only say it was extremely successful, considering there has not been a single gun massacre in Australia since it was introduced.



Incidentally homicide =/= firearm related deaths.





It's hardly surprising that gun control failed to curb the UK's homicide rate in the 90s because the majority of homicides in the UK were committed with knives to begin with.



Worth noting that even during its largest spike, the homicide rate per 100k population was less than half the rate in the US. The current rate is less than a quarter.

The UK has also had only one mass shooting since the 1997 gun bans. Which AGAIN, were in the wake of a horrific mass shooting (Dunblane school massacre) and that's what they were designed to reduce.

Why do you post stuff about firearm deaths? Firearm deaths are not worse than deaths by other means, a decrease in firearm deaths is meaningless if the number of deaths per capita still isnt decreasing.

[fengosa]

Keep in mind that the latest legislation on gun control was modest and only attempted to expand background checks to the internet and county fairs. It was supported by 85-90% of the population but still didn't pass because politicians didn't want to give fodder for attack ads.

[TZucchini]

Care to link an example of when it is done?

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

I could probably link 100 more if necessary. And really, it's a bit off topic. We have a thread devoted to this exact discussion.

The real topic at hand is "are gun control advocates their own worst enemy." The answer to that is "possibly, but probably not."

[Osoroshii]

Both sides have contributed to killing the idea of compromise, thanks largely to the extremists of each group.

We don't need to outlaw/ban guns entirely, but we do need to make background checks more thorough and raise the penalties on stores for not performing them (store where I bought mine never bothered to check me), and mental health needs to be taken into account during background checks. A lot of the recent massacres have occurred with people who had documented mental issues, and in many of these cases, they legally purchased the guns used themselves. No, all psychiatric records should be put in a database that can be searched along with criminal records/histories and if someone has a history of depression or irrational anger, fuck you, you're not getting a gun.

People also need to be held responsible for what others do with their guns, like when a fourteen year old kid takes his father's gun, goes to school, and kills a bunch of people. Tragic, but now the gun owner is being tried as an accomplice or accessory to murder for having his gun in a nightstand instead of a safe. Sorry if your dear little Billy shot himself after he shot eight of his classmates, but now you get to stand trial for having allowed him unfettered access to the murder weapon in the first place. Maybe if more penalties are imposed on careless parents and irresponsible owners, just maybe people will start locking their weapons up better and teaching their kids proper gun safety.

[buck008]

Both sides have contributed to killing the idea of compromise, thanks largely to the extremists of each group.

We don't need to outlaw/ban guns entirely, but we do need to make background checks more thorough and raise the penalties on stores for not performing them (store where I bought mine never bothered to check me), and mental health needs to be taken into account during background checks. A lot of the recent massacres have occurred with people who had documented mental issues, and in many of these cases, they legally purchased the guns used themselves. No, all psychiatric records should be put in a database that can be searched along with criminal records/histories and if someone has a history of depression or irrational anger, fuck you, you're not getting a gun.

People also need to be held responsible for what others do with their guns, like when a fourteen year old kid takes his father's gun, goes to school, and kills a bunch of people. Tragic, but now the gun owner is being tried as an accomplice or accessory to murder for having his gun in a nightstand instead of a safe. Sorry if your dear little Billy shot himself after he shot eight of his classmates, but now you get to stand trial for having allowed him unfettered access to the murder weapon in the first place. Maybe if more penalties are imposed on careless parents and irresponsible owners, just maybe people will start locking their weapons up better and teaching their kids proper gun safety.

I have said this many times and been called a dirty liberal who hates freedom and I won't be happy until Obama takes all of our guns.

I have also said that the Second Amendment has been interpreted time and again to allow for private citizens to own guns and any outright ban on guns would require a repeal of that Amendment and such an idea is extremely extremely unlikely, nor do I think it's a good idea to take away gun rights from responsible adults. I have been called a fascist conservative gun nut who wants to see all of our children murdered for that.

So yea, both sides suck. Who knew.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

And then people complain about forums being toxic with arguing all the time. People never wanna have fun.

Whoa whoaa. I don't think Tony and that other guy was interested IN THAST kinda way >_>

[Theinquisition]

Whoa whoaa. I don't think Tony and that other guy was interested IN THAST kinda way >_>

lol, Aelouron, are you joining our merry group of sexual deviant derailers?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

lol, Aelouron, are you joining our merry group of sexual deviant derailers?

I'm too creepy for that and Crissi doesn't like me anyways.


OT: For the thousandth time Pro gun folks.


I have never advocated taking away your guns. I ask for responsibility and good judgement. With a gun you have the power of life and death. You need to use it responsibly not to mention it causes fear. I know this is going to sound old but "With great power, comes great responsibility."


I will never advocate a ban on guns much as interesting and *SEEMINGLY* peaceful thing to see. I don't necessarily want it. So please do not lump me with the radical left *liberals* that want to ban guns. I don't. I'd rather have it harder to get a gun and make sure you prove you are able to handle a gun not that you *deserved it or not*. As long as you are able to get it and not *Sorry guns are banned qq moar*.

That said the NRA and radical Conservitives with their guns need to just shut up. Your guns are not toys, they are tools made to kill. You could say they are to defend but you can defend and kill. They can coexist. So really, get out of this crazy narrow road ahead of you.


Obama is not going to take your guns away. He is not the devil incarnate, he is not Lord Sargeras in disguise. He is not Diablo, he is not Lord Palpatine Lord of the Sith. Sheesh, save your criticism when it's actually needed.

[Giscoicus]

Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides.

I could probably link 100 more if necessary. And really, it's a bit off topic. We have a thread devoted to this exact discussion.

The real topic at hand is "are gun control advocates their own worst enemy." The answer to that is "possibly, but probably not."

As far as the first link goes, they state

Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method

this, of course, plays into being at risk of completed suicide, as those who fail to kill themselves will often be heavily monitored in an attempt to prevent another attempt at taking their life. Given that guns are less likely to fail at killing oneself, those who go to guns for suicide are going to die more often as there isn't that place for intervention. This is not addressed as far as I can tell, and it needs to be. They conveniently ignore

Betz and colleagues (52) found that adolescents with firearm access were no more likely to have suicidal thoughts or a suicide plan in the past 12 months than those without firearm access

when making their conclusion, leaving it as little more than a footnote at the end of a paragraph. They treat "risk of suicide" as the same thing as being successful in killing yourself, which is deceptive as those who are having suicidal thoughts are considered being "at risk of suicide" in most cases, a parent with a suicidal child would consider him or her to be "at risk of suicide" whether or not it would be challenging for them to be successful.

As far as homicides go, the study also fails to share significant insight into some of the studies that they. The 9th study they used states

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

which demonstrates a correlation between both gun in home and homicide and homicide and history of crime/violence, while offering no further insight into either correlation, such as a possible cause if any . It is deceptive to use the raw data to suggest that there is an increased risk of homocides within families with a gun, which is what the study suggests, dropping the 9th study when making the statement

Furthermore, empirical evidence suggests that most homicide victims know their assailant (10, 24), which suggests an interpersonal dispute within the household or other domestic violence and not an unknown intruder

which is funny because the phrasing of the statement suggests that it is fighting between family members or friends who are in the household, which one of the studies--the one they choose to ignore this time around--found many of the victims to be living alone and more often than not having a history of crime or violence. Homicide in the home is not limited to members of the household, it includes any sort of violence where a person ends up dead within their own home. The study acknowledges this,

Fifth, in studies with homicide outcomes, whether the presence of a firearm among case patients is the result of environmental characteristics or living conditions is unclear. For example, some persons may purchase a firearm for protection because of neighborhood crime, which then translates the risk from the ownership of a firearm to the neighborhood.

yet despite this major complication, they still go on to ignore this potential problem and make a conclusion that does not account for it.

Most importantly of all, however, is that the study talks about a correlation between ACCESSIBILITY of firearms and suicide or homicide in the home when the entire analysis is about ownership. It is misleading to suggest that accessibility has an impact when nothing about how accessible guns are is analyzed.


Im reading the 2nd link now, there isnt much with the 3rd link but "no control variables" and "strong and statistically significant" do not belong in the same statement.

[ComputerNerd]

Register all firearms. With a civilian ban on automatic weapons.

You don't need an AR-15 to go hunting or defend your family - and if you do, you probably shouldn't qualify for ownership OR... you really, really need to move somewhere safer.

Plus it was over 220 years ago that "right" was determined based on the environment at the time, hugely different now not least due to the increased killing capability of guns as the technology has improved.

The ideals surrounding it are simply outdated, and it needs to be re-evaluated in a modern context.

[apepi]

They will miss use the registration just like people do voter fraud.

[Rukentuts]

They will miss use the registration just like people do voter fraud.

So a misuse percentage that is effectively zero? Damn.

[Giscoicus]

Plus it was over 220 years ago that "right" was determined based on the environment at the time, hugely different now not least due to the increased killing capability of guns as the technology has improved.

The ideals surrounding it are simply outdated, and it needs to be re-evaluated in a modern context.

But the improvements of guns as technology has improved is something the founding fathers would have considered. While it was not really used as its design was not perfected until later, the puckle gun existed prior to the writing of the constitution by more than 50 years, and while we may have been using muskets in the revolutionary war, the fact that such a gun existed and was capable of firing at a rate of nearly 10 times that of the "minutemen" was something they were aware of. The evolution of technology did not sway them from protecting the right to bear arms.

A gun existed that could fire nearly 10 times faster than what they were using. Guns now can fire ten times faster than the puckle gun. Increased killing capacity does not justify revision of the 2nd amendment as increased killing capacity was a known inevitability when the constitution was written.

[TZucchini]

As far as the first link goes...

While I can appreciate your zeal for analyzing these studies, nothing you've pointed out has any appreciable effect on the conclusion of the study. It remains the same: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Most importantly of all, however, is that the study talks about a correlation between ACCESSIBILITY of firearms and suicide or homicide in the home when the entire analysis is about ownership. It is misleading to suggest that accessibility has an impact when nothing about how accessible guns are is analyzed.

What? This is most important? A rather subtle distinction between owning a firearm and having access to that firearm? This is an argument of semantics, not substance.

Im reading the 2nd link now, there isnt much with the 3rd link but "no control variables" and "strong and statistically significant" do not belong in the same statement.

Here's the full copy of the 3rd study, since you seem so inclined. Once you're done with your analysis, I have about 100 other studies I can link, which all come to the same conclusion.

That's a pretty important point. The results have been duplicated time after time after time. In different locations. With different people. During different time periods.