Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Linkedblade]

Ignoring that this "you can't compare" stuff is absolutely nonsense, but to the bolded in particular.

Has it ever been a thought that maybe that is the point if we're looking at causes of the astronomically high levels of gun violence and frequency of mass shootings in the US?

Astronomically high compared to what exactly? That's the problem. If there were other countries with similar gun ownership you could say a country has a better system than the other. As it is, there isn't.

[Elegiac]

Address why the first amendment isnt a fossil that in no way properly addresses hate speech in modern society.

Because "freedom of speech" even in the vague sense as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is a demonstrable public good (far more so when elaborated on with common and statute law detailing its exceptions like hate speech, incitement, et cetera).

"Right to bear arms" even in the vague sense as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, however, is not a demonstrable public good even when elaborated on with common and statute law detailing its exceptions.

Astronomically high compared to what exactly?

To other developed countries that do not have obscene numbers of firearms in circulation with practically no regulation.

If there were other countries with similar gun ownership you could say such a country is better than the other. As it is, there isn't.

That's not how statistics works.

The differentiating factors are the number of guns in circulation and lack of regulation.

[Breccia]

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

Yep, and the US is the worst at both. That's why @Endus cited it.

-.68265 Correlation coefficient. Definitely not a gotcha, by any means.

Did I call you out for this before? I should have. You have just proven you don't know stats. Critical values of r/r-squared are sample size based. Also:

There is a strong ( r = –.68, p < .000), statistically significant relationship between gun laws and the gun death rate in a state: as gun laws increase in a state, gun deaths go down.

The information you should have posted, if you actually knew what you were talking about, is @Endus 's strongest point.

See me after class.

This was an analysis of which factors are more likely to determine who would commit a gun homicide. You may want to actually read it.

Why? You didn't. The conclusion is 100% clear.

We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Matching that first one.

This is a great break down of homicide worldwide, don't really think that supports what you're saying at all.

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on you reading a 128-page PDF in the sub-30 minutes between Endus posting it and you saying it doesn't have something. In fact, I think that's so little time, I can just call you a liar. You did not read this paper. At least, not before responding, you didn't.

Fortunately for me, it's much easier to prove a positive than a negative. All I have to do is quote

Another aspect is the role played by firearms in violent crime. It is crucial that measures to prevent crime should include policies towards the ratification and implementation of the UN Firearm protocol. Domestic policies in furtherance of the Protocol’s provision can help avoid the diversion of firearms to fuel violence and increase homicides.

and

The role played by firearms in homicide is fundamental and, while the specific relationship between firearm availability and homicide is complex, it appears that a vicious circle connects firearm availability and higher homicide levels.

and of course

Some crime prevention principles—such as the need to address the root causes of violence through interventions on parenting, life skills, access to alcohol, modifying public environments, and addressing cultural norms, deprivation and inequality—are clearly common. Responding, however, to the predominant use of firearms in homicide may require different policy and practical approaches to that of knife use, including control legislation and measures that address access to firearms and underlying reasons for gun ownership (see box on firearm legislation).

Oh look. Exactly what you said wasn't there, was there. There's a really good bit on page 49 about how homicides and gun homicides dropped dramatically in the Philipines when they had a gun ban. Which, again, directly relates to what @Endus was saying.

Oh, and don't bother calling me out for making you look the fool. Endus made you look the fool. I'm just the one cheering in the stands.

[Edge-]

Astronomically high compared to what exactly? That's the problem. If there were other countries with similar gun ownership you could say a country has a better system than the other. As it is, there isn't.

Literally the same thing you keep saying doesn't exist: Similarly developed, mostly western (more similar culturally) first world nations. Based on GDP, accounting for population.

This is really fairly trivial stuff that's been repeatedly covered in this thread multiple times.

Again, that America is unique in our rate of gun ownership/accessibility, and in our level of gun-related violence and mass shootings, should make the point fairly fucking obvious.

[Elegiac]

Literally the same thing you keep saying doesn't exist: Similarly developed, mostly western (more similar culturally) first world nations. Based on GDP, accounting for population.

This is really fairly trivial stuff that's been repeatedly covered in this thread multiple times.

Again, that America is unique in our rate of gun ownership/accessibility, and in our level of gun-related violence and mass shootings, should make the point fairly fucking obvious.

But Edge, what about all the other canards factors that might lead to high rates of gun violence which would be resolved by policies the people gun nuts constantly vote for consistently oppose? /s

[Twdft]

You don't have a similar nation to compare the US to. Even if you take a statistic per capita, it wouldn't matter because there are no other nations with similar gun laws.

You're so close. What do you think would happen If the USA did adopt gunlaws of other nations?

[Mayhem]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11130511/
"Conclusion: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."

"Results: In simple regressions (no control variables) across 26 high-income nations, there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates."

You forgot to include that part, I wonder why.

[Breccia]

You forgot to include that part, I wonder why.

By the way, two of the five articles he himself linked (Endus linked more) also point out that higher murder is correllated with higher firearm murder. So if he tries "what about firearm murder?" it only clarifies what we know to be clear: he didn't read them.

Still tho, basing a conclusion on r but ignoring p is "can't decide if D or F grade". It's been a few semesters since I saw someone make such a rookie mistake.

[Endus]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11130511/
"Conclusion: Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."

That literally confirms my point and refutes your position. I'm really not sure why you quoted the conclusion which proves you wrong. Yes, having more guns means more firearms homicides. Literally the data upon which the concept of gun control rests; by increasing gun control and reducing the number/prevalence/ease of access to firearms, homicides can be reduced significantly.

https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/
-.68265 Correlation coefficient. Definitely not a gotcha, by any means. Definitely implies there are other things at play.

@Breccia already cited the most important quote, but the central point here is that what you're citing is a very strong correlation coefficient. Again, you cite evidence that directly refutes you, as if it's support.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/do...PH.2013.301409
This was an analysis of which factors are more likely to determine who would commit a gun homicide. You may want to actually read it.

I did.

After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates.

The study took great pains to consider as many possible or suggested contributors it could, and it was able to eliminate the majority of them, and of the remaining few that showed correlation, gun ownership was the strongest.

Also, you're mischaracterizing the study; it was not looking to "determine who would commit a gun homicide", it was looking at population-level factors and incidence rates at that population level. No individual analysis at all.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-...cide-2011.html
This is a great break down of homicide worldwide, don't really think that supports what you're saying at all.

Notwithstanding such challenges, a significant body of literature tends to suggest that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide. In particular, a number of quantitative studies tend towards demonstrating a firearm prevalence-homicide association.

It literally does. It's more difficult to draw clear lines when you broaden the scope to a global one, and include crimes and ownership rates in developing and struggling nations and the potential flaws in their data collection, but they still identified the same correlation between gun ownership and firearms homicide rates, despite those additional factors tending to fuzz the data. So you literally just didn't even bother to check what it said. Unfortunately for you, I had.

You are wrong. You can't cite data to back your case up. You're lying about the data that does exist, as you just did right here. You keep trying to throw irrational monkey wrenches in to confuse debate, like claiming that the USA is such a special precious snowflake it literally can't be compared to any other nation, which is just obvious fuckin' horse shit and I don't believe for a hot second you didn't know that when you claimed that.

You don't have a point, or argument. All you're doing is trying to oppose action, and ensure the rate of mass shootings continued without abatement.

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, two of the five articles he himself linked (Endus linked more) also point out that higher murder is correllated with higher firearm murder. So if he tries "what about firearm murder?" it only clarifies what we know to be clear: he didn't read them.

The four he posted were some of the ones I'd posted. They weren't even new sources. Literally just the first four I linked.

And then, as you noted, he lied about every single one.

[Breccia]

Double-header that speaks to bipartisanship in the US: McConnell says he'll back the (limited) gun control bill within a few minutes of US Supreme Court security being voted an upgrade.

Well, in the House. McConnell seems to think it won't pass the Senate.

The security issue is related to Supreme Court justices, not nameless staff that no one knows

Which basically everyone called. As a reminder, the security issue was one guy who called himself in.

As briefly mentioned before by others and maybe once by me, the bill with McConnell's professed support does have money for mental health -- meaning, of course, and GOP member who says it's a mental health issue and votes against it can and should be called out for hypocrisy. It does close a loophole that says people who beat their girlfriends can't get guns to murder them with.

[Linkedblade]

That literally confirms my point and refutes your position. I'm really not sure why you quoted the conclusion which proves you wrong. Yes, having more guns means more firearms homicides. Literally the data upon which the concept of gun control rests; by increasing gun control and reducing the number/prevalence/ease of access to firearms, homicides can be reduced significantly.


@Breccia already cited the most important quote, but the central point here is that what you're citing is a very strong correlation coefficient. Again, you cite evidence that directly refutes you, as if it's support.



I did.

After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates.

The study took great pains to consider as many possible or suggested contributors it could, and it was able to eliminate the majority of them, and of the remaining few that showed correlation, gun ownership was the strongest.

Also, you're mischaracterizing the study; it was not looking to "determine who would commit a gun homicide", it was looking at population-level factors and incidence rates at that population level. No individual analysis at all.

Notwithstanding such challenges, a significant body of literature tends to suggest that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide. In particular, a number of quantitative studies tend towards demonstrating a firearm prevalence-homicide association.

It literally does. It's more difficult to draw clear lines when you broaden the scope to a global one, and include crimes and ownership rates in developing and struggling nations and the potential flaws in their data collection, but they still identified the same correlation between gun ownership and firearms homicide rates, despite those additional factors tending to fuzz the data. So you literally just didn't even bother to check what it said. Unfortunately for you, I had.

You are wrong. You can't cite data to back your case up. You're lying about the data that does exist, as you just did right here. You keep trying to throw irrational monkey wrenches in to confuse debate, like claiming that the USA is such a special precious snowflake it literally can't be compared to any other nation, which is just obvious fuckin' horse shit and I don't believe for a hot second you didn't know that when you claimed that.

You don't have a point, or argument. All you're doing is trying to oppose action, and ensure the rate of mass shootings continued without abatement.

- - - Updated - - -



The four he posted were some of the ones I'd posted. They weren't even new sources. Literally just the first four I linked.

And then, as you noted, he lied about every single one.

No, it doesn't. Your position is "guns are bad, ban them." And then all your sources indicate one of the following:
1) Subjective numeration of gun control law does not strongly relate to gun homicide.
Or
2) Gun ownership is a strong indicator of gun homicide.

Neither of which prove your point that "guns are bad ban them"

However, (1) implies that any level of gun control in this country does nothing. And that's particularly creates an issues because anything more drastic is against the constitution. Claiming you want to amend the constitution for the right to protect yourself is going to be a tough battle. That pretty much sums up this thread. Any further argumentation is moot.

Also, +-.068 is not a strong correlation in either the physical sciences or social sciences.

[Edge-]

Your position is "guns are bad, ban them."

I don't think this is an accurate reflection of his, or really anyone's position in this thread.

[Endus]

No, it doesn't. Your position is "guns are bad, ban them."

Feel free to quote me saying that, literally anywhere.

You're just lying, again.

And then all your sources indicate one of the following:
1) Subjective numeration of gun control law does not strongly relate to gun homicide.
Or
2) Gun ownership is a strong indicator of gun homicide.

It's had to parse what you're saying in #1. If you're trying to say that there's no strong negative correlation between the amount of gun control legislation and the amount of firearms homicide, then you're lying. There is.

And if you're not, you're admitting you're wrong and I'm right, which is why I'm assuming that's what you meant.

As for #2; yeah, that supports my stance and refutes yours. Literally the point, here.

Neither of which prove your point that "guns are bad ban them"

Again, not something I've actually said. But straw men are easier to tackle than people's actual positions.0

However, (1) implies that any level of gun control in this country does nothing. And that's particularly creates an issues because anything more drastic is against the constitution. Claiming you want to amend the constitution for the right to protect yourself is going to be a tough battle. That pretty much sums up this thread. Any further argumentation is moot.

Okay, so you are lying about what the data shows regarding gun control legislation. Because it shows a strong correlation to reduced firearms homicide rates. Despite your dishonest claims otherwise.

Also, I really couldn't give less of a fuck what the Constitution says. It also said you should be able to own slaves. It's a flawed document that was explicitly intended to be updated over time. Amending the Constitution is, literally, in the Constitution.

If you mean it's going to be difficult to pass such legislation, because Republicans support the current rates of firearms homicide and mass shootings and do not want to lower those rates, that's fine, but it's an admission of how terribly broken the American system of governance is, and how venal and corrupt those lawmakers are. Not an argument that it's a defensible position in terms of academic, ethical, or scientific rigor.

Also, +-.068 is not a strong correlation in either the physical sciences or social sciences.

That's a lie. It depends entirely on the context, the field of study, and the precise stylings of the analysis. All of which was accounted for in the study, which itself called that level of correlation "strong", accurately. Their word, not mine.

[uuuhname]

If you mean it's going to be difficult to pass such legislation, because Republicans support the current rates of firearms homicide and mass shootings and do not want to lower those rates, that's fine, but it's an admission of how terribly broken the American system of governance is, and how venal and corrupt those lawmakers are. Not an argument that it's a defensible position in terms of academic, ethical, or scientific rigor.

but they cannot in good faith argue against this position. hence why they constantly dance around it and strawman the positions of the people making it.

[Endus]

but they cannot in good faith argue against this position. hence why they constantly dance around it and strawman the positions of the people making it.

It's seriously like trying to frickin' argue that the of course the Nazis should've gotten the right to mass-slaughter Jews in Germany and their occupied territories; they won an election and that gave them the right to make those choices!

Sure looks like it's an argument that's absolutely monstrous once you recognize that politics are never inevitabilities, but always intentional choices by actual people, who absolutely can be judged for their complete lack of basic humanity or decency.

Same for anything trying to reference the Founding Fathers and their intents or the wisdom written into the Constitution; they designed that document to support and protect their "freedom" to beat and rape their slaves to death, and their motives and "wisdom" should absolutely be fuckin' questioned.

[uuuhname]

It's seriously like trying to frickin' argue that the of course the Nazis should've gotten the right to mass-slaughter Jews in Germany and their occupied territories; they won an election and that gave them the right to make those choices!

Sure looks like it's an argument that's absolutely monstrous once you recognize that politics are never inevitabilities, but always intentional choices by actual people, who absolutely can be judged for their complete lack of basic humanity or decency.

and of course the reasonable accusation of "well, then you don't care about dead kids" is suddenly an ad hominem attack. sorry! maybe stop making arguments in favor of the status quo and how the constitution as it stands is immaculate.

[Linkedblade]

Same for anything trying to reference the Founding Fathers and their intents or the wisdom written into the Constitution; they designed that document to support and protect their "freedom" to beat and rape their slaves to death, and their motives and "wisdom" should absolutely be fuckin' questioned.

That's why it was called a compromise. Half the framers didn't want to legalize slavery in the constitution, but it was either legalize it and unite or be divided and conquered.

- - - Updated - - -

and of course the reasonable accusation of "well, then you don't care about dead kids" is suddenly an ad hominem attack. sorry! maybe stop making arguments in favor of the status quo and how the constitution as it stands is immaculate.

I'm not. Gun control laws don't work, discuss another solution.

- - - Updated - - -

You're so close. What do you think would happen If the USA did adopt gunlaws of other nations?

Violent crime would rise to even worse levels, because criminals would know that no one would have a way to defend themselves. See any country where guns were outlaws altogether.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think this is an accurate reflection of his, or really anyone's position in this thread.

Endus swears by the canadian style which is exactly that.

[Edge-]

I'm not. Gun control laws don't work, discuss another solution.

The rest of the developed world disagrees with you.

[uuuhname]

I'm not. Gun control laws don't work, discuss another solution.

say's the guy living in the only country where gun violence of this type and scale happens on a regualr basis. it's not like the rest of world doesn't indulge in our love of violence in media but for some BIZZARE reason, do not suffer from the same epidemic of violence. it couldn't possibly be the laws on the books that do that, no, just lie or act dumb about all the other countries that had mass shooting's, did the some legislation and suddenly they haven't happened since. it must be magic. you've figured it out Linkedblade, IT'S FUCKING MAGIC.

[Edge-]

Endus swears by the canadian style which is exactly that.

Are guns banned in Canada?

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/ar...tions-answered

Nope, doesn't look like it.

Find a new strawman.