Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

I think you already said this:

OK. Since you won't answer the question, I can only assume you are talking about two completely different laws (A and B). That makes absolutely no sense. But let's go with it.


The entire conversation started when you claimed: "there is no evidence to suggest any gun control legislation will prevent firearm violence/crime."

To which I replied with "well yes there is. this one study found a relationship between homicide and background checks. when they removed a background check law, while controlling for other variables, they found that homicide increased."

To which you replied "Because repealing existing legislation is the same thing as instituting new legislation, right?"

So what you really meant was "Because repealing a background check is the same thing as instituting a safe storage law, right?"

Well no. No it's not. But if there is a relationship between homicide and background checks, then repealing a background check law and instituting a background check law should have inverted outcomes on homicide. That is the entire point, and that reasoning (evidence) completely disproves your original statement of "there is no evidence to suggest any gun control legislation will prevent firearm violence/crime." (even though it was already disproved since you said "any")

[Tinykong]

OK. Since you won't answer the question, I can only assume you are talking about two completely different laws (A and B). That makes absolutely no sense. But let's go with it.


The entire conversation started when you claimed: "there is no evidence to suggest any gun control legislation will prevent firearm violence/crime."

To which I replied with "well yes there is. this one study found a relationship between homicide and background checks. when they removed a background check law, while controlling for other variables, they found that homicide increased."

To which you replied "Because repealing existing legislation is the same thing as instituting new legislation, right?"

So what you really meant was "Because repealing a background check is the same thing as instituting a safe storage law, right?"

Well no. No it's not. But if there is a relationship between homicide and background checks, then repealing a background check law and instituting a background check law should have inverted outcomes on homicide. That is the entire point, and that reasoning (evidence) completely disproves your original statement of "there is no evidence to suggest any gun control legislation will prevent firearm violence/crime." (even though it was already disproved since you said "any")

You must have missed where I refined my statement to mean I was referring to the additional legislation being proposed in this thread (assault weapon bans, safe storage laws, repealing the 2nd amendment, etc.)

I'm not surprised pedantry was the default response, however, given my vocal support of UBCs, it should been pretty obvious that I wasn't saying "all firearm laws are useless."

Well, to people who don't drink Hyperbole Juice for breakfast, anyway.

[Eroginous]

Unless, of course, you produce a study, eliminate the confounding factors, and determine that a relationship exists between the the law and homicides.

Yes, just ignore 'confounding variables' so you can arrive at the predetermined conclusion!

Don't forget to cold call random people who may or may not be giving you false information!

So if a relationship between homicides and gun-control legislation exists, it only exists in one direction? That doesn't make any sense to me.

What he's saying is correlation does not equal causation. We cannot determine that repealing a law had the direct effect of increasing homicide. That's why your studies and incessant bleating about them are irrelevant. In case you missed it the first time, even if we enacted a new background check bill in the area where homicide has increased, there is no reason to assume homicide rates will decrease as a result.

At best, you have a study that suggests there's a link without actually substantiating anything with solid evidence. For all you know the increase in homicide was already happening (due to a variety of factors), despite existing gun control legislation, and repealing said legislation was just coincidental.

[PhaelixWW]

For example,43% of firearm-households with children under the age of 18 have at least one unlocked firearm in the house. That's a measurement of responsibility, outside of criminality, that is completely relevant to the discussion.

Not really. You assume that all those 43% are irresponsible solely on that fact. For starters, only 13% had an unlocked firearm either loaded or with ammunition. And what if the child is an infant and the gun is in a box on the top shelf of a closet. Is that irresponsible? Maybe in a few years when the infant becomes big enough to climb chairs and get into things. What about a 17-year-old that has his own hunting shotgun. Do you think everyone agrees with your interpretation of responsibility that says that that shotgun must be locked and kept away from the 17-year-old at all times?

Hell, I'm surprised you don't just quote firearm ownership rates and pretend that simply the act of owning a firearm makes you irresponsible.

Just following your lead:

Except mine was far less reaching of a statement. And I can point to people who understood what I meant and also used the word in the same way.

You were saying that it wasn't obvious to anyone. Demonstrably wrong.

You use a word incorrectly, and somehow I'm pugnacious for pointing it out.

I didn't use the word incorrectly. Criminal irresponsibility is still a form of irresponsibility. Just because you're blind to context doesn't make it incorrect.

OK. So the actual numbers and the conclusion of the study are correct, yet your interpretation of the results are that: "An 88-year-old law is repealed, people go crazy buying shit for a few years, then settle down again." That's a wonderful opinion which doesn't erase the additional homicides that the study found.

Sure, if you want to completely ignore the low-high-low-high-low swing, which directly speaks against the repealed law being the causal factor in the change.

Unless, of course, you produce a study, eliminate the confounding factors, and determine that a relationship exists between the the law and homicides.

You keep saying "eliminate the confounding factors" like that's possible. You can control for the presence of confounding factors, but you can never eliminate them. You can never identify every single one, nor can you 100% accurately quantify the effect each ones has in order to eliminate it completely.

The best you can do is attempt to mitigate their impact.

So if a relationship between homicides and gun-control legislation exists, it only exists in one direction? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Then perhaps that just indicates a lack of mental acuity on your part.

For example. Gun control is brought up as a subject, a law is passed. It brings firearms to the forefront of people's conscious, leads to more criminals thinking they have to get a gun to do their crime. 20 years later, that gun control law is repealed. Once again, it brings firearms to the forefront of people's conscious, leading to the same result.

There, in both situations, merely the act of legislating gun control, in either direction, could potentially have a transient effect on crime rates. Did the crime go up because of the specific content or even the direction of the law? No.

That's a hypothetical, of course, but it's one possible way that it could work out.

Now maybe you can see why observing the effects of repealing a law is not necessarily enough to judge the effects of the law itself. What would have been more telling for your interpretation would have been if homicide rates had gone up and stayed up after the repeal. But that didn't happen, did it. A transient, intermittent increase speaks to some other factor, which was my point all along.

[Rukentuts]

You keep saying "eliminate the confounding factors" like that's possible. You can control for the presence of confounding factors, but you can never eliminate them. You can never identify every single one, nor can you 100% accurately quantify the effect each ones has in order to eliminate it completely.

The best you can do is attempt to mitigate their impact.

And you know how one does that? But linking studies and not linking raw data and drawing scientific conclusions off a single variable on it.

[TZucchini]

I didn't use the word incorrectly. Criminal irresponsibility is still a form of irresponsibility. Just because you're blind to context doesn't make it incorrect.

I'm sorry, what context? "The vast majority of firearm owners are responsible." That's the context. There's no basis for the context pertaining strictly to criminal behavior. Stop trying to pretend like there is. It's an all-encompassing term that describes the behavior of the owner in regard to the use and ownership of the firearm.

Sure, if you want to completely ignore the low-high-low-high-low swing, which directly speaks against the repealed law being the causal factor in the change.

Let me ask you something, Phaelix. When you came up with your numbers, did you control for policing, poverty, education levels, etc.? Did you also check the non-firearm homicide rate for comparison? Did you check the rates from the surrounding states? Did you control for a single variable?

Oh you didn't? And yet you're using those raw numbers as the basis of your argument? Yeah. You've haven't addressed anything.

[Tinykong]

Let me ask you something, Phaelix. When you came up with your numbers, did you control for policing, poverty, education levels, etc.? Did you also check the non-firearm homicide rate for comparison? Did you check the rates from the surrounding states? Did you control for a single variable?

Oh you didn't? And yet you're using those raw numbers as the basis of your argument? Yeah. You've haven't addressed anything.

One doesn't need to control for these variables in order to call a cherry picked study a cherry picked study.

INB4 "Science denial!!!!11"

[Deleted]

Hey,
as a German who studies politics i don't want to get into the whole gun discussion too much since it always makes me kinda angry. So instead i just leave this link here.

/watch?v=l8OhS4MhLcQ

It was published by an organisation called "Sandy Hook Promise". It is a well done documentary about the victims of gun violence but not only the ones that died at Sandy Hook but also other people that died in different situations. Its very sad and i admit that it made me cry more than once.

I think it carries an important message: If you have a gun, keep it safe and locked away. Its such a trivial thing. Be a responsible person and gun owner. I know that banning guns wont happen anytime soon. At least not for the next 50 years. But i think everybody in America owes it to the families who have lost their relatives to gun violence. That is the least everybody can do.

[TZucchini]

One doesn't need to control for these variables in order to call a cherry picked study a cherry picked study.

Lol. Are you fucking kidding me?

Phaelix is the one cherry picking numbers. He chose a completely cherry picked year (2011-2012) to make his "argument" look better.

The study measured the following 4 years immediately after the repeal (2008-2012). That's completely reasonable, and in no way cherry-picked.

You are absolutely clueless here. Lol. What a joke.

[Tinykong]

The study measured the following 4 years immediately after the repeal (2008-2012). That's completely reasonable, and in no way cherry-picked.

And completely failed to acknowledge that some of those years were the same as years before the repeal.

Do you even know what cherry picked means? Hurr durr.

- - - Updated - - -

I do like how you deflected with the "Well, Phaelix is cherry picking, too" childish antics instead of addressing the actual post that was made.

[TZucchini]

And completely failed to acknowledge that some of those years were the same as years before the repeal.

How could that possibly be relevant when the study found that "the law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012."

Stop looking at the raw numbers like they're relevant. They're not.

- - - Updated - - -

I do like how you deflected with the "Well, Phaelix is cherry picking, too" childish antics instead of addressing the actual post that was made.

The word "too" doesn't belong in that sentence. Phaelix is the only one cherry-picking numbers.

Imagine if the study only measured a single year following the repeal. You guys would be fucking foaming at the mouth.

[Tinykong]

How could that possibly be relevant when the study found that "the law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012."

Stop looking at the raw numbers like they're relevant. They're not.

Did you even read the previous posts? It's like your brain reset from the last page or something.

[PhaelixWW]

I'm sorry, what context? "The vast majority of firearm owners are responsible." That's the context.

No, that's a stripped down version of the statement that's proferred out-of-context. Context, you know, the discussion around the statement. Hell, on top of that, we're talking about this in a thread devoted to discussions about gun control laws and their potential effectiveness of gun crime. In the over-arcing context of this thread as a whole, the default standard for the term "responsibility" would be criminal responsibility.

This is something that many other posters realize. You're just being stubbornly and intentionally obtuse.

If I had responded to a statement about whether or not people have a tendency to muzzle-sweep others with their finger on the trigger with that statement, you might have an argument, because that would contextualize the term fairly specifically. Buuuuut that's not what happened.

It's an all-encompassing term that describes the behavior of the owner in regard to the use and ownership of the firearm.

When you're talking about potentially all-encompassing terms, context matters. Duh. It doesn't mean that the word always has to be all-encompassing.

Let me ask you something, Phaelix. When you came up with your numbers, did you control for policing, poverty, education levels, etc.? Did you also check the non-firearm homicide rate for comparison? Did you check the rates from the surrounding states? Did you control for a single variable?

Feel free to send me some of that research grant money and I will. In the meantime, piggybacking on his research data, it's easy to note that they don't account for the low-high-low-high-low swing that I've mentioned now several times. In fact, his comparison conveniently stops in 2010, ignoring the substantial drop for the years of 2011, 2012, and 2013, a drop that is not mirrored by the surrounding states or the US as a whole. Averaging 2008-2010 makes it look like an increase after the repeal. Looking at the years individually, especially including 2011, 2012, and 2013 shows that 2008 and 2010 (not even 2009) are statistical outliers on the long-term trend.

And none of the confounding variables that he attempted to control for were of sufficient magnitude to account for the intense fluctuation in such a short time frame.[/QUOTE]

[Tinykong]

The word "too" doesn't belong in that sentence. Phaelix is the only one cherry-picking numbers.

Imagine if the study only measured a single year following the repeal. You guys would be fucking foaming at the mouth.

Oh, I'm sorry, did the study apply the same controls to the years prior to the repeal, or for the years following the immediate surge?

Nope. That's what cherry picking means. Go home, PRE, you're drunk.

[TZucchini]

Oh, I'm sorry, did the study apply the same controls to the years prior to the ban

Prior to what ban? I don't even know what your'e saying anymore.

Go home, Tiny, you're drunk.

[Tinykong]

Prior to what ban? I don't even know what your'e saying anymore.

Stop being such a fucking pedant. You know exactly what I'm referring to.

[PhaelixWW]

Phaelix is the one cherry picking numbers. He chose a completely cherry picked year (2011-2012) to make his "argument" look better.

The study measured the following 4 years immediately after the repeal (2008-2012). That's completely reasonable, and in no way cherry-picked.

First, I'm not only looking at 2011-2012. If you think so, then you're not really reading what I'm saying (surprise, surprise).

Second, 2008-2012 is five years, not four years. Date ranges are inclusive, another math word for you.

Third, the study only really addresses 2008-2010. Most of the comparison analysis only deals with 2008-2010. Had it dealt fully with 2008-2012, it would have found wildly different results and therefore prompted a different conclusion, hence my initial statement about numbers-massaging.

Fourth, all of my statements are looking at 2007-current. That's why I keep saying low-high-low-high-low, because 2007, 2009, and 2011-2013 are all low, while only 2008 and 2010 are high.

[TZucchini]

Stop being such a fucking pedant. You know exactly what I'm referring to.

This isn't a discussion about a "ban." So no, I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Tinykong]

This isn't a discussion about a "ban." So no, I have no idea what you're referring to.

Right, because I clearly didn't mistakenly type "ban" instead of "repeal."

Jesus fucking christ, your pedantry is obnoxious.

- - - Updated - - -

You going to address the post, or are you going to continue to engage in your usual childish antics?

[TZucchini]

Third, the study only really addresses 2008-2010.

What does that even mean? The study addresses 2008-2012, and concludes that "The law’s repeal was associated with an additional 49 to 68 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012"

The "highlowhighlow" garbage is a representation of raw data. It's not relevant to the discussion.