Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

I think it has absolutely nothing to do with saving lives, or the unjustifiable rate of firearm deaths.
If it was about saving lives then we would be talking about an all out ban, but since we have the 2nd amendment that won't happen.
SO the next logical step to save lives would be to regulate HANDGUNS since they are the most common weapon used in firearm related crimes and deaths. Since they care so much about saving lives and not disarming the public what do ignorant lawmakers do? Try to ban assault weapons which are used in less than .2% of gun related crimes and or deaths.

Of course. Regulating guns as a whole is the way to go. Ban on assault weapon is a symbolic act. Similar to say politicians reducing their wages during a time of crisis.
Minimal results, but a much needed starting step.

[TZucchini]

Then how do you explain the drop back to earlier levels in 2009, between the peak years of 2008 and 2010? And how do you explain it dropping dramatically again to earlier levels for 2011 and 2012?

I would explain it like this: the initial repeal of the law led to a rush of purchases. It's entirely plausible to believe that many of these rush purchases were people who would not have passed the extensive background check while the law was in place. In fact it's exactly what you'd expect.

After a year or two, things cooled down a bit, law enforcement caught up, and the age-adjusted homicide rate normalized.

This could tell us two things. 1). That extensive background checks are an effective means of limiting access to undesirable candidates, and 2). That repealing said policies result in short term increases in homicide rates.

[lockedout]

Of course. Regulating guns as a whole is the way to go. Ban on assault weapon is a symbolic act. Similar to say politicians reducing their wages during a time of crisis.
Minimal results, but a much needed starting step.

How is it a needed starting step unless you have ulterior motives?
It will do nothing except take firearms from law abiding citizens who are breaking no law, knee jerk feel good laws are not the answer.

[Deleted]

You'll have to forgive my lack of interest in providing you with more disparities to hand waive.

Blablabla. I hand waived nothing and we all can see that. There is only yourself left in this useless ranting. But dont worry I'll forgive you that.
What I won't forgive is your lack of material to provide to the discussion that's more than criticising perfectly valid data from perfectly valid sources collected in perfectly valid ways, only because it doesn't match with your fabricated ideas.
One thing is to be biased. Another is to be completely blind, and with an aggressive tone on top of that.
Don't worry, the UN, WHO and the whole world isn't criticising your beautiful country. You're just neck deep into shit when it comes to how personal use of guns is regulated. Or should I say, not regulated.

- - - Updated - - -

How is it a needed starting step unless you have ulterior motives?
It will do nothing except take firearms from law abiding citizens who are breaking no law, knee jerk feel good laws are not the answer.

Ulterior motives being coming up with a full on set of regulations on firearms to limit numbers and in general work on this unhealthy relationship you guys have with guns. Through education and media on top of regulations.
The situation is out of control, just look at the numbers, you can't deny that.

[Tinykong]

Blablabla. I hand waived nothing and we all can see that. There is only yourself left in this useless ranting. But dont worry I'll forgive you that.
What I won't forgive is your lack of material to provide to the discussion that's more than criticising perfectly valid data from perfectly valid sources collected in perfectly valid ways, only because it doesn't match with your fabricated ideas.
One thing is to be biased. Another is to be completely blind, and with an aggressive tone on top of that.
Don't worry, the UN, WHO and the whole world isn't criticising your beautiful country. You're just neck deep into shit when it comes to how personal use of guns is regulated. Or should I say, not regulated.

I'll ask again (but you won't, because you can't.) Quote me where I criticized any data.

I'd say your statement that "a disparity exists, but it's small compared to the data size" is a hand waive. Account for those disparities, provide that data, and you've got a post. Anything else is more irrelevant bullshit from you, which is what I expect you will post.

[Deleted]

I'll ask again (but you won't, because you can't.) Quote me where I criticized any data.

I'd say your statement that "a disparity exists, but it's small compared to the data size" is a hand waive. Account for those disparities, provide that data, and you've got a post. Anything else is more irrelevant bullshit from you, which is what I expect you will post.

This isn't my statement at all.
Read my posts and find out why the difference in reporting homicides is absolutely irrelevant in this particular case.

[Tinykong]

This isn't my statement at all.
Read my posts and find out why the difference in reporting homicides is absolutely irrelevant in this particular case.

You also hand waived the disparity of the UK reporting deaths in the year the body is found, and not the year death took place.

I guess it is just a little disparity.

[Deleted]

You also hand waived the disparity of the UK reporting deaths in the year the body is found, and not the year death took place.

I guess it is just a little disparity.

You guessed right. If it was a .3 difference I would agree. But when you're talking 10.3-0.25 there is no way on earth the rare case a person killed by misuse (or proper use) by firearm isnt found that year affect 10 x100k.
It's also only limited to the uk. You are free to dig into it and look for major disparities in reporting between the us and a set of 10 developed countries of your choice.

But this really is getting ridicolous at this stage.

[TheGrey08]

Of course. Regulating guns as a whole is the way to go. Ban on assault weapon is a symbolic act. Similar to say politicians reducing their wages during a time of crisis.
Minimal results, but a much needed starting step.

Problem is, the term "Assault Weapon" is terribly flawed. By just reading the term, you would think it would involve automatic weapons (which are already banned), but it doesn't. These "Assault Weapons" like AR-15s for example function very similar to most handguns especially with rate of fire. 1 shot per pull of the trigger. It's mostly just aesthetics (grips, stocks, scopes, etc).

How about we start dealing with mental illness, instead of hiding from it, acting like it doesn't exist as well as come up with some realistic & responsible regulation (not dumb bans).

[Tinykong]

You guessed right. If it was a .3 difference I would agree. But when you're talking 10.3-0.25 there is no way on earth the rare case a person killed by misuse (or proper use) by firearm isnt found that year affect 10 x100k.
It's also only limited to the uk. You are free to dig into it and look for major disparities in reporting between the us and a set of 10 developed countries of your choice.

But this really is getting ridicolous at this stage.

As always with your bullshit:

Citation needed.

[Deleted]

Problem is, the term "Assault Weapon" is terribly flawed. By just reading the term, you would think it would involve automatic weapons (which are already banned), but it doesn't. These "Assault Weapons" like AR-15s for example function very similar to most handguns especially with rate of fire. 1 shot per pull of the trigger. It's mostly just aesthetics (grips, stocks, scopes, etc).

How about we start dealing with mental illness, instead of hiding from it, acting like it doesn't exist as well as come up with some realistic & responsible regulation (not dumb bans).

Mental illness and possession of guns is a huge issue to look at and I agree with you.

Again, I also think a ban on assault weapons is purely symbolic.

- - - Updated - - -

As always with your bullshit:

Citation needed.

YOU calling for citation? You have been sitting on that armchair of yours doing nothing but criticising perfectly valid data. It really takes guts to say something like that.

Actually, I'm being kind now. You know what, you're right, you discovered the faulty link between uk and us data.
Now you only need to find similar disparities between the us and the remaining developed countries and you will finally make this study invalid.
Tell us when you're done. Want to start with, I don't know, France? Try turkey maybe. That'll be fun.

Talk soon.

[Tinykong]

YOU calling for citation? You have been sitting on that armchair of yours doing nothing but criticising perfectly valid data. It really takes guts to say something like that.

Actually, I'm being kind now. You know what, you're right, you discovered the faulty link between uk and us data.
Now you only need to find similar disparities between the us and the remaining developed countries and you will finally make this study invalid.
Tell us when you're done. Want to start with, I don't know, France? Try turkey maybe. That'll be fun.

Talk soon.

Hand waiving and hat tipping, that's twice today.

You pulled those figures out of thin air, apparently just making shit up now is part of your playbook, too. Oh well.

Where's that quote of me criticizing data? This will be the third time you've been asked and failed to present it.

[Deleted]

Hand waiving and hat tipping, that's twice today.

You pulled those figures out of thin air, apparently just making shit up now is part of your playbook, too. Oh well.

Yeh ok thank you for your input bye.

[lockedout]

The situation is out of control, just look at the numbers, you can't deny that.

I agree but the situation is black males 18-24 shooting each other.
Deal with that problem instead of making more laws and regulations these guys could care less about.
It's about confiscation not saving lives.

[Tinykong]

Yeh ok thank you for your input bye.

As I suspected, you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. Calling out your bullshit is fun!

[Eroginous]

Geeeee really??? Well, I guess correlation is completely useless then! Thanks for the lesson.

The repeal of the law correlates directly with a sharp spike in the firearm homicide rate. Other forms of homicide, without firearms, did not increase. Firearm homicide rates in the surrounding states decreased during the same time period. They controlled for multiple variables, including poverty and unemployment.

This is a strong correlation. But I wouldn't expect someone that shouts "durrrr correlation does not equal causation!", to understand something so complex.

Correlation is not a "coincidence". It's a statistical relationship between two sets of data. Correlations are used to predict the potential existence of causal relationships. It's not "simply coincidence". Such a rudimentary understanding of statistics is borderline offensive.

The article doesn't "directly imply" anything. It makes a claim, and it backs it up with evidence and facts.

I'm sorry that you don't like the conclusion.

Look, either the repeal of the law caused an increase in firearm homicide rates, or it didn't. The entire point of you linking the article was to imply the repeal of the law caused an increase in firearm related murders. Then you want to peddle the word 'correlation' around as if it allows you to say the repeal caused the increase without saying it?

Yeah, okay buddy.

[Deleted]

Oh and just a quick one so you can work it out.

Inter-country Comparison of Mortality for Selected Cause of Death - Total Firearm Death

Firearm-related ICD-10 Codes1 include:
- Unintentional handgun discharge (W32)
- Unintentional rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge (W33)
- Unintentional discharge from other and unspecified firearms (W34)
- Intentional self-harm by handgun discharge (X72)
- Intentional self-harm by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge (X73)
- Intentional self-harm by other and unspecified firearm discharge (X74)
- Assault by handgun discharge (X93)
- Assault by rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge (X94)
- Assault by other and unspecified firearm discharge (X95)
- Handgun discharge, undetermined intent (Y22)
- Rifle, shotgun and larger firearm discharge, undetermined intent (Y23)
- Other and unspecified firearm discharge, undetermined intent (Y24)

Country (Year): Number of deaths (crude rate per 100,000 population) - percent of all deaths

Austria (2010): 247 (2.9448) - 0.32%
Azerbaijan (2007): 6 (0.0699) - 0.0119%
Belgium (2006): 256 (2.427) - 0.2557%
Bulgaria (2011): 99 (1.3472) - 0.0914%
Croatia (2010): 133 (3.0106) - 0.2553%
Cyprus (2010): 7 (0.8336) - 0.1376%
Czech Republic (2010): 185 (1.759) - 0.1731%
Denmark (2006): 79 (1.4537) - 0.1431%
Estonia (2010): 34 (2.537) - 0.2154%
Finland (2010): 195 (3.6358) - 0.383%
France (2009): 1,864 (3.0001) - 0.347%
Georgia (2009): 68 (1.5416) - 0.1458%
Germany (2010): 903 (1.1045) - 0.1052%
Hungary (2009): 85 (0.8481) - 0.0652%
Iceland (2009): 4 (1.253) - 0.1998%
Ireland (2010): 46 (1.0316) - 0.1696%
Israel (2009): 139 (1.8569) - 0.3602%
Italy (2009): 769 (1.2776) - 0.1307%
Kyrgyzstan (2010): 55 (1.0096) - 0.152%
Latvia (2010): 32 (1.4292) - 0.1064%
Lithuania (2010): 53 (1.6125) - 0.1258%
Luxembourg (2009): 9 (1.808) - 0.2486%
Malta (2010): 9 (2.1635) - 0.299%
Montenegro (2009): 54 (8.5506) - 0.9206%
Netherlands (2010): 76 (0.4574) - 0.0559%
Norway (2010): 87 (1.7794) - 0.2099%
Poland (2010): 98 (0.2566) - 0.0259%
Portugal (2010): 188 (1.7682) - 0.177%
Republic of Moldova (2011): 37 (1.0393) - 0.0943%
Romania (2010): 42 (0.196) - 0.0162%
Serbia (2010): 284 (3.895) - 0.2752%
Slovakia (2010): 95 (1.7492) - 0.1778%
Slovenia (2010): 50 (2.4399) - 0.2687%
Spain (2010): 288 (0.6251) - 0.0754%
Sweden (2010): 138 (1.4715) - 0.1525%
TFYR Macedonia (2010): 38 (1.8491) - 0.1988%
United Kingdom (2010): 155 (0.2508) - 0.0276%
Uzbekistan (2005): 179 (0.6841) - 0.1273%

Source: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statis...ethod.pdf?ua=1

And:

Year - Cause of death - Number - Rate

2011 - Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) - 851 - 0.3

2011 - Intentional self-harm (suicide) (*U03,X60-X84,Y87.0) - 38,285 - 12.3
2011 - Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) - 19,766 - 6.3

2011 - Assault (homicide) (*U01-*U02,X85-Y09,Y87.1) - 15,953 - 5.1
2011 - Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) - 11,101 - 3.6

2011 - Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) - 222 - 0.1

2011 - Injury by firearms (*U01.4,W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,Y35.0)[10] - 32,163 - 10.3

Source:Hoyert, Donna L. and Jiaquan Xu. 2012. ‘Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011 - Selected Causes.’ National Vital Statistics Reports (NVSS); Vol 61, No. 6, pp.40-42. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics. 10 October.
Relevant contents

Table 2. Deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for 113 selected causes, Injury by firearms, Drug-induced deaths, Alcohol-induced deaths, Injury at work, and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium difficile: United States, final 2010 and preliminary 2011

Enjoy

- - - Updated - - -

As I suspected, you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion. Calling out your bullshit is fun!

Saying something makes it true!!

[Rukentuts]

Oh yeah the UK doesn't have this figured out at all.

[Tinykong]

Look, either the repeal of the law caused an increase in firearm homicide rates, or it didn't. The entire point of you linking the article was to imply the repeal of the law caused an increase in firearm related murders. Then you want to peddle the word 'correlation' around as if it allows you to say the repeal caused the increase without saying it?

Yeah, okay buddy.

It's pretty obvious that was why the article was linked.

[Deleted]

I agree but the situation is black males 18-24 shooting each other.
Deal with that problem instead of making more laws and regulations these guys could care less about.
It's about confiscation not saving lives.

Those black males are still American people that need to be sorted out.
Want to propose a limit on guns on black males only? That sounds viable