Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

There's no direct causal link, but there's plenty of studies that find: states with higher rates of gun ownership have a disproportionately larger numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

[TZucchini]

"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

Pretty damning correlation, no?

[Tinykong]

You had a discussion with someone about trends, overall trends etc. it's unsurprising you didn't recognize the information that was given to you as actual information. I haven't called you stupid, but I have said you don't seem to understand...because you display a constant and clear inability to understand the discussions you're having with people.

As I suspected, won't (i.e: can't) provide the proof requested. Claims of ignorance/inability to understand/etc., etc., etc. Talk about going down that road again...

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty damning correlation, no?

I don't see how it's disproportionate. One would expect that with a 1% increase in ownership, a 1% increase in homicides would occur. That includes suicides and accidents?

(edit: was supposed to be a question, not a statement. I can't open the full article, just the abstract.)

[TZucchini]

I don't see how it's disproportionate. One would expect that with a 1% increase in ownership, a 1% increase in homicides would occur.

Right. I'd expect that as well. I was responding to Laize, who seems to think otherwise.

That includes suicides and accidents?

It says "firearm homicide rates", so I would guess that it's excluding suicides, as a homicide is defined as one person killing another.

[Tinykong]

Right. I'd expect that as well. I was responding to Laize, who seems to think otherwise.

It says "firearm homicide rates", so I would guess that it's excluding suicides, as a homicide is defined as one person killing another.

I've seen some statistics that include suicides in the homicide statistics, even though it's impossible for a suicide to be a homicide. The abstract referred to suicides, which is why I asked, hopefully someone can open the full thing.

[NYC17]

As I suspected, won't (i.e: can't) provide the proof requested. Claims of ignorance/inability to understand/etc., etc., etc. Talk about going down that road again...

No, I won't repeat things other people have explained to you ad nauseam. it's weird you think that should be a requirement of a discussion.

[tombstoner139]

Should all cars require a garage and the club in order to own them because someone might steal it and crash into someone killing them?

No they should all come with breathalyzers to stop drunk people from starting there cars and killing people. cars when miss handled are more deadly then fire arms. With a hand gun you normally cant accidentally kill a family of 4.

We need to focus on areas of society that will do some real good. gun control is not it. Add a breathalyzer to all vehicles by 2020 and you will reduce alcohol related deaths:wont happen, why... too much money.... its too intrusive to start the car, lets ban guns instead to make America safer.

All a gun ban will accomplish is persecute lawful citizens and create an underground black market to illegal weapons..... problem exasperated not solved.

gun safes are a reasonable level of protection, just like breathalyzers on cars.

[Tinykong]

No, I won't repeat things other people have explained to you ad nauseam. it's weird you think that should be a requirement of a discussion.

What was explained has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claims about firearm violence trends over a 50 year period.

Providing proof of your claims is part of a discussion. Oddly, you don't seem to be interested in doing so, likely because it would require you to admit you are wrong from time to time.

[NYC17]

What was explained has nothing to do with your unsubstantiated claims about firearm violence trends over a 50 year period.

Providing proof of your claims is part of a discussion. Oddly, you don't seem to be interested in doing so, likely because it would require you to admit you are wrong from time to time.

The proof, ironically, was in your own source. Your failure to acknowledge or recognize that is a problem for you to reconcile. No one else is responsible.

Again, this was explained to you.

[Tinykong]

The proof, ironically, was in your own source. Your failure to acknowledge or recognize that is a problem for you to reconcile. No one else is responsible.

Again, this was explained to you.

I'm only going to say this one more time: no it is not. What you claimed isn't contained in the Pew Research source.

You saying something is true doesn't make it so. Provide a screen shot or reference to the page/paragraph proving me wrong.

[Ghostpanther]

You're only law abiding til you aren't. Sorta like that cop in Tampa. Oh I'm sorry, was that supposed to be a plea for sympathy, another self victimization play, or an actual argument?

Keep in mind, I'm not an anti-gun advocate. I just deal in reality so your bullshit woe-is me rhetoric won't do you much good here.

Huh? But your personal attacks will? I am not in a state of " woe-is me ". I have the right to keep and bear arms and plan on continuing to do so. So I have no need to feel woe-is me. You only think something is bullshit when it happens to disagree with your logic. I will not resort to calling someone else's opinion "'bullshit". Because I believe we all have one. If it happens to disagree with mine, so be it.

[Eroginous]

When are you guys going to learn?

Decklan, Rukentuts, and NYC17 aren't here to have a discussion. That's why their posts are full of bullshit and hyperbole.

'You're only law abiding til you aren't.' No shit? I figured you were a law abiding citizen until a court of law proved otherwise.

[Roxinius]

When are you guys going to learn?

Decklan, Rukentuts, and NYC17 aren't here to have a discussion. That's why their posts are full of bullshit and hyperbole.

'You're only law abiding til you aren't.' No shit? I figured you were a law abiding citizen until a court of law proved otherwise.

pretty much why i dont post in here anymore

[Tinykong]

When are you guys going to learn?

Decklan, Rukentuts, and NYC17 aren't here to have a discussion. That's why their posts are full of bullshit and hyperbole.

'You're only law abiding til you aren't.' No shit? I figured you were a law abiding citizen until a court of law proved otherwise.

I don't like letting their post fly around uncontested.

[NYC17]

Huh? But your personal attacks will? I am not in a state of " woe-is me ". I have the right to keep and bear arms and plan on continuing to do so. So I have no need to feel woe-is me. You only think something is bullshit when it happens to disagree with your logic. I will not resort to calling someone else's opinion "'bullshit". Because I believe we all have one. If it happens to disagree with mine, so be it.

Your right is not absolute. Law abiding or not, restrictions are part of the deal. I have little sympathy for those who insinuate just because they have been law abiding up until now, they're somehow adversely affected by restrictions. Everyone is law-abiding to they aren't. Throwing the term out there like it's something noteworthy doesn't do much.


Please detail these personal attacks and feel free to explain why you're so sensitive to them.

[Delekii]

I'm only going to say this one more time: no it is not. What you claimed isn't contained in the Pew Research source.

You saying something is true doesn't make it so. Provide a screen shot or reference to the page/paragraph proving me wrong.

I really feel like I am getting trolled at this point.

I hope this is what you want to hear: There is no data that will ever show that, when stripped of any other qualifying variable, gun violence has risen over the last 50 years. It hasn't. You are asking us to provide a graph that disproves a fact. Gun violence is lower today than 50 years ago.

However, that statistic alone means nothing without consideration of every other potential qualifying variable.

Here, broken down point by point, are the places where that is represented in your article:

National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime,

This point is represented in the graphs shown for gun violence vs. total violence. The rate of gun homicide vs. total homicide, I represented in my graph a few pages back.

The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Researchers have studied the decline in firearm crime and violent crime for many years, and though there are theories to explain the decline, there is no consensus among those who study the issue as to why it happened.

Researchers continue to debate the key factors behind changing crime rates, which is part of a larger discussion about the predictors of crime.3 There is consensus that demographics played some role:

By the early 1990s, crack markets withered in part because of lessened demand, and the vibrant national economy made it easier for even low-skilled young people to find jobs rather than get involved in crime.

It is less clear, researchers say, that innovative policing strategies and police crackdowns on use of guns by younger adults played a significant role in reducing crime.

The National Academy of Sciences review of possible influences on crime trends said there is good evidence of a link between firearm ownership and firearm homicide at the local level;

Internationally, a decline in crime, especially property crime, has been documented in many countries since the mid-1990s. According to the authors of a 30-country study on criminal victimization (Van Dijk et al., 2007), there is no general agreement on all the reasons for this decline.

So, what your article went to great pains to point out is that the reduction in crime in modern history is a multivariable mystery, and nobody has good answers as to why. Nowhere, in any way, did it make a causal link between increasing gun ownership and decreasing violence; and it stopped only just short of describing the opposite.

I think I'm pretty much done with this part of the argument; if you still can't make the jump in logic to the uselessness of a single variable analysis of a multi variable problem, there isn't much point discussing it further.

[NYC17]

When are you guys going to learn?

Decklan, Rukentuts, and NYC17 aren't here to have a discussion. That's why their posts are full of bullshit and hyperbole.

'You're only law abiding til you aren't.' No shit? I figured you were a law abiding citizen until a court of law proved otherwise.

Incorrect. I'm all for discussion. Just not on your terms(made-up shit such as your hilarious dictionary argument), and with you defining things because you feel like it.

Also, if a law proves that you didn't in fact follow the law, guess what? You wouldn't be a law abiding citizen.

No. Shit.

[Tinykong]

I really feel like I am getting trolled at this point.

The post wasn't directed at you.

NYC17 made a bullshit claim, I challenged it. He won't be posted any proof because there isn't any. He made an false claim, and is literally incapable of admitting to being wrong. He will continue to make snide posts and introduce red herrings to try and conceal that. That's what he does.

[Eroginous]

Incorrect. I'm all for discussion. Just not on your terms(made-up shit such as your hilarious dictionary argument), and with you defining things because you feel like it.

Please feel free to quote whatever I've said you think is made up. I'm more than willing to better explain anything I've said that may be causing your confusion.

Also, if a law proves that you didn't in fact follow the law, guess what? You wouldn't be a law abiding citizen.

No. Shit.

Why do you think we have courts? To determine whether or not someone broke the law. Even if you have good reason to suspect someone of breaking the law, you still have to prove it.

That requires evidence presented in a court of law. Therefore, you are a law abiding citizen until proven otherwise in a court of law. I think there's even a term for that: 'Innocent until proven guilty.'

Regardless, you're stating the obvious as some sort of argument against gun ownership, and it's a non sequitur.

[TZucchini]

Therefore, you are a law abiding citizen until proven otherwise in a court of law. I think there's even a term for that: 'Innocent until proven guilty.'

You're a law abiding citizen until you've broken a law. If I kill a bunch of people, and never get caught, does that make me law abiding?