|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2016 03:29 Reaps wrote:
I read the link Super, and yea the 1996-2002 years were surprising and i would be interested to hear why we had that surge during that time, however what you didn't mention was the fact that the gun crimes has been reduced more and more every year since then.
That's because beginning in the year 2003 if I'm not mistaken the U.K. drastically increased the number of police officers pretty much everywhere. Since then, crime has subsided in general.
One of the major problems we have here in the U.S. is that our police force is vastly understaffed and underfunded, especially in the cities where violent crimes are a major problem (i.e. Chicago, Detroit, etc.)
Gun legislation's effect on firearm homicide rates is marginal at best if even that. Solving the root of the issue/problem is a more effective solution more than anything.
|
Gun laws are not going to have an instant effect on homicide rates. It would take a decade or more to reduce the number of illegal owned guns.
|
On July 09 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
Gun laws are not going to have an instant effect on homicide rates. It would take a decade or more to reduce the number of illegal owned guns.
Right. And the Assault Weapons ban that was created during Clinton's presidency sure had a massive impact on number of firearm crimes committed. Not.
Within a 5 year period you should see some sort of effect, but instead, the reverse was happening in the U.K.; post handgun ban, you had even more firearm homicides being committed. You're grasping at straws at this point.
|
On July 09 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
Gun laws are not going to have an instant effect on homicide rates. It would take a decade or more to reduce the number of illegal owned guns.
In the US I'm sure the effect would be delayed, but there's no doubt in my mind that a weakly regulated legal firearms market eventually feeds the black market.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 09 2016 03:39 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
Gun laws are not going to have an instant effect on homicide rates. It would take a decade or more to reduce the number of illegal owned guns. Right. And the Assault Weapons ban that was created during Clinton's presidency sure had a massive impact on number of firearm crimes committed. Not. Within a 5 year period you should see some sort of effect, but instead, the reverse was happening in the U.K.; post handgun ban, you had even more firearm homicides being committed. You're grasping at straws at this point.
Anyone can cherrypick cases though, that doesn't make you clever. Missouri had a bad experience with some gun control legislation, arguably the federal assault weapons bad was the incorrect way about it. Other countries have had better experiences, like the previously mentioned Australia, Austria, South Africa. Switzerland is often cited for its high weapon ownership, but guns are very regulated there nonetheless. You may mention homogeneity in some of those cases but obviously no single word tells the whole story.
|
On July 09 2016 03:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral. There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world. So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides. Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done. Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd. 1) By removing the 2nd Amendment you leave firearm legislation completely up to the state unless you pass another amendment through to rectify the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Bad idea. So the 2nd amendment is fine, not because its content is fine, but because the process to rectify it is too clumsy? I recognize that it's difficult, I'm arguing for principles here not specific solutions with a walkthrough for how to get there. Show nested quote +2) Proper unbiased research. Right. Didn't we already go over why the CDC are a bunch of assholes, probably bigger ones than the NRA? The rider states only the CDC themselves cannot advocate or promote firearm legislation. The NRA has never done anything to well respected criminologists (people who actually study crime unlike the CDC) from studying firearm related violence and what can be done to reduce it. Not familiar with the actions of the CDC. Show nested quote +3) The rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and overall violence because the rest of the world has a far more homogenized society where you don't have a strong mix of different cultures and ethnic heritages mixed together. You can't compare a country like Japan to the United States, not even feasible. You people take ceteris paribus to mean essentially "no comparison can be made ever". Gun violence in America is rooted in... the presence of guns, racial issues, income inequality, mental illness. The existence of other factors, and even the existence of factors that are more important than gun violence, does not invalidate gun control as a potential and very important path of solution to consider. Odds are the US would see a lot less gun crime if poverty was less of a problem, and if that happened there would be less of a need for gun control. Canada is pretty fucking diverse too but we have fewer guns, less poverty, a shitload more social mobility, better mental healthcare. None of this shit republicans would be willing to pay for. Show nested quote +4) The fact that you can't even refute any of the studies that have been put up here as evidence as to why increased gun regulation and bans doesn't work says a whole lot about your position in general. I didn't see those studies here, I assume you linked pdfs and I missed them and now I'm expected to read 500 pages of biased studies and come up with a retort on the fly. Gun crime went down in Australia after they imposed drastic gun control measures... but again other variables were at play. Intellectual lightweights see "there are other variables" so it's difficult to get a clear picture, test is inconclusive and therefore guns are harmless. It's so fucking easy. But sure I can google up like let's see... "Studies showing that vaccines cause autism", right? That's cool. I can follow that for weeks and find cool new information about this. I can write "Studies showing that gun control works" (or doesn't work, they both pop up into google). Let's see what this says... Tens of studies in a vast array of countries showing gun control reducing gun crime. You have longitudinal public health studies saying "Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively." I can find studies saying the opposite, though. And those are the ones you like. I'm not saying they're worthless and entirely fraudulent, but your eagerness to do nothing is quite disturbing.
Here's the crux of the issue; the vast majority of the studies from even liberal criminologists and economists heavily favor gun rights activists. There hasn't been a single study done in the past like 2 decades that has shown me that there is a noticeable effect from implementing more stringent gun control laws. This isn't like there isn't a wealth of information on the subject, there is plenty to go around. However, the vast majority of academic studies I've read (even from the CDC and other institutions that are incredibly biased against guns in general) have supported the position that legal firearms have very little to do with firearm violent crimes. I could find study after study that supports the position that gun control laws are ineffective, and that in fact, the presence of guns in general deters crime. However, I cannot say the same for the opposite side of the argument. What that tells me, is that one side is clearly right, and one side is clearly wrong.
And by the way, the CDC were a bunch of assholes in the 90s and were pushing their agenda with a shoddily done study to try and lobby for gun legislation. They were called out on it and that's why they cannot promote gun control.
|
On July 09 2016 03:40 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:36 Plansix wrote:
Gun laws are not going to have an instant effect on homicide rates. It would take a decade or more to reduce the number of illegal owned guns. In the US I'm sure the effect would be delayed, but there's no doubt in my mind that a weakly regulated legal firearms market eventually feeds the black market. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxzjQTsU1LY
And when we ban specific types of guns, the industry just creates new guns of that same type with specific modifications to avoid the ban.
|
On July 09 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:32 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral. There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world. So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides. Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done. Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd. 1) By removing the 2nd Amendment you leave firearm legislation completely up to the state unless you pass another amendment through to rectify the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Bad idea. So the 2nd amendment is fine, not because its content is fine, but because the process to rectify it is too clumsy? I recognize that it's difficult, I'm arguing for principles here not specific solutions with a walkthrough for how to get there. 2) Proper unbiased research. Right. Didn't we already go over why the CDC are a bunch of assholes, probably bigger ones than the NRA? The rider states only the CDC themselves cannot advocate or promote firearm legislation. The NRA has never done anything to well respected criminologists (people who actually study crime unlike the CDC) from studying firearm related violence and what can be done to reduce it. Not familiar with the actions of the CDC. 3) The rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and overall violence because the rest of the world has a far more homogenized society where you don't have a strong mix of different cultures and ethnic heritages mixed together. You can't compare a country like Japan to the United States, not even feasible. You people take ceteris paribus to mean essentially "no comparison can be made ever". Gun violence in America is rooted in... the presence of guns, racial issues, income inequality, mental illness. The existence of other factors, and even the existence of factors that are more important than gun violence, does not invalidate gun control as a potential and very important path of solution to consider. Odds are the US would see a lot less gun crime if poverty was less of a problem, and if that happened there would be less of a need for gun control. Canada is pretty fucking diverse too but we have fewer guns, less poverty, a shitload more social mobility, better mental healthcare. None of this shit republicans would be willing to pay for. 4) The fact that you can't even refute any of the studies that have been put up here as evidence as to why increased gun regulation and bans doesn't work says a whole lot about your position in general. I didn't see those studies here, I assume you linked pdfs and I missed them and now I'm expected to read 500 pages of biased studies and come up with a retort on the fly. Gun crime went down in Australia after they imposed drastic gun control measures... but again other variables were at play. Intellectual lightweights see "there are other variables" so it's difficult to get a clear picture, test is inconclusive and therefore guns are harmless. It's so fucking easy. But sure I can google up like let's see... "Studies showing that vaccines cause autism", right? That's cool. I can follow that for weeks and find cool new information about this. I can write "Studies showing that gun control works" (or doesn't work, they both pop up into google). Let's see what this says... Tens of studies in a vast array of countries showing gun control reducing gun crime. You have longitudinal public health studies saying "Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively." I can find studies saying the opposite, though. And those are the ones you like. I'm not saying they're worthless and entirely fraudulent, but your eagerness to do nothing is quite disturbing. Here's the crux of the issue; the vast majority of the studies from even liberal criminologists and economists heavily favor gun rights activists. There hasn't been a single study done in the past like 2 decades that has shown me that there is a noticeable effect from implementing more stringent gun control laws. This isn't like there isn't a wealth of information on the subject, there is plenty to go around. However, the vast majority of academic studies I've read (even from the CDC and other institutions that are incredibly biased against guns in general) have supported the position that legal firearms have very little to do with firearm violent crimes. I could find study after study that supports the position that gun control laws are ineffective, and that in fact, the presence of guns in general deters crime. However, I cannot say the same for the opposite side of the argument. What that tells me, is that one side is clearly right, and one side is clearly wrong. And by the way, the CDC were a bunch of assholes in the 90s and were pushing their agenda with a shoddily done study to try and lobby for gun legislation. They were called out on it and that's why they cannot promote gun control.
You say there hasn't been a single study done in the past 20 years that shows noticeable effects from implementing more stringent gun control laws, now I don't know what you mean about stringent laws, I personally am in favor of small things like waiting periods, registration of semi-automatic firearms and basic things like that which frankly shouldn't cost too much to implement and they're minor inconveniences to law-abiding citizen. The paper "What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?" does show noticeable effects from implementing some gun control laws, though, and if the media are to be believed it's the "biggest study to date" and it's essentially a review of the scientific literature from 10 different countries, showing a general trend that suggests that some forms of gun control work.
One thing I'd like to hear from you is what tangible value does the 2nd amendment have over what other countries do?
|
On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:13 Reaps wrote:On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing. What do you mean it has done absolutely nothing? You think we have problems with gun crime here in the UK? Regardless of stepping up the police force as you stated, there is simply very little ways of getting guns over here, if people want to commit attacks, they have to settle for other means which very often means less deaths. I just posted some statistics regarding firearm homicide rates earlier in the U.K. post handgun ban. You may want to look it up as it's quite surprising.
Using that to conclude that it's proven that it does nothing is completley disingenous, I don't even know where to start.
The UK had stricter gun control than the US does now for almost a century before the 1997 effective ban on handguns. They already had a firearm homicide rate lower than 0.1 per 100 000, more than 30 times lower than the US. So what reduction in firearm homicides can you possibly expect from an already statistically insignificant one, from a ban that follows strict gun control? Strict gun control that the 2nd amendment internet defenders say does nothing.
Secondly, Australia did have a reduction of 60% in firearm homicides since the ban, but this doesn't prove anything because it doesn't fit the glove?
Thirdly, neither of them were anywhere close to the US current gun violence situation before the ban. The UK barely had any mass shootings in the first place, how can you extrapolate from this that either gun control or ban would do nothing to reduce mass shootings in a country where they happen every other week? No one has ever been in America's situation before, of course there can't possibly be any past data showing that it will reduce it.
Fourthly, even if you personally think that gun regulations wouldn't help reduce the current rate of firearm homicides / mass shootings in the US, would it be much of an inconvenience to do it anyway? It really is not much different than obtaining a driver permit, registering your car and so on, a minor hassle but not something that makes thousands of people dedicate their lives to fighting against it.
|
On July 09 2016 04:00 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 03:13 Reaps wrote:On July 09 2016 03:04 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:56 Plansix wrote:
The slippery slope fallacy at its finest. If gun safety laws are passed and enforced, it will automatically result in the end of fire arms ownership. There is no evidence why this would happen or that a reasonable level of gun safety laws could not be reached. It is simply the default answer to dismiss all need and discussions about laws or regulations, regardless of fact that people support them. Because the liberal left on multiple occasions (including current democratic nominee Hillary Clinton) have put forth the suggestion that the United States should move towards a firearm ban like Australia or the U.K. When it's been proven that it does absolutely nothing. What do you mean it has done absolutely nothing? You think we have problems with gun crime here in the UK? Regardless of stepping up the police force as you stated, there is simply very little ways of getting guns over here, if people want to commit attacks, they have to settle for other means which very often means less deaths. I just posted some statistics regarding firearm homicide rates earlier in the U.K. post handgun ban. You may want to look it up as it's quite surprising. Using that to conclude that it's proven that it does nothing is completley disingenous, I don't even know where to start. The UK had stricter gun control than the US does now for almost a century before the 1997 effective ban on handguns. They already had a firearm homicide rate lower than 0.1 per 100 000, more than 30 times lower than the US. So what reduction in firearm homicides can you possibly expect from an already statistically insignificant one, from a ban that follows strict gun control? Strict gun control that the 2nd amendment internet defenders say does nothing. Secondly, Australia did have a reduction of 60% in firearm homicides since the ban, but this doesn't prove anything because it doesn't fit the glove? Thirdly, neither of them were anywhere close to the US current gun violence situation before the ban. The UK barely had any mass shootings in the first place, how can you extrapolate from this that either gun control or ban would do nothing to reduce mass shootings in a country where they happen every other week? No one has ever been in America's situation before, of course there can't possibly be any past data showing that it will reduce it. Fourthly, even if you personally think that gun regulations wouldn't help reduce the current rate of firearm homicides / mass shootings in the US, would it be much of an inconvenience to do it anyway? It really is not much different than obtaining a driver permit, registering your car and so on, a minor hassle but not something that makes thousands of people dedicate their lives to fighting against it.
Because registering firearms would mean a fee on every single firearm, which would cost lots of firearm owners lots of money for seemingly no reason. Just because of liberal jackwads want it despite all evidence pointing to the contrary, doesn't mean I should have to do it.
On July 09 2016 04:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 03:32 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 03:15 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral. There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world. So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides. Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done. Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. So I feel like the evidence that's needed to argue that the 2nd amendment is very thin. Something that has no benefits like the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be proven to be very harmful for people to kind of assume it's a piece of shit. Keeping the 2nd amendment because of the dogmatic belief maybe it's not that harmful is absurd. 1) By removing the 2nd Amendment you leave firearm legislation completely up to the state unless you pass another amendment through to rectify the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Bad idea. So the 2nd amendment is fine, not because its content is fine, but because the process to rectify it is too clumsy? I recognize that it's difficult, I'm arguing for principles here not specific solutions with a walkthrough for how to get there. 2) Proper unbiased research. Right. Didn't we already go over why the CDC are a bunch of assholes, probably bigger ones than the NRA? The rider states only the CDC themselves cannot advocate or promote firearm legislation. The NRA has never done anything to well respected criminologists (people who actually study crime unlike the CDC) from studying firearm related violence and what can be done to reduce it. Not familiar with the actions of the CDC. 3) The rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and overall violence because the rest of the world has a far more homogenized society where you don't have a strong mix of different cultures and ethnic heritages mixed together. You can't compare a country like Japan to the United States, not even feasible. You people take ceteris paribus to mean essentially "no comparison can be made ever". Gun violence in America is rooted in... the presence of guns, racial issues, income inequality, mental illness. The existence of other factors, and even the existence of factors that are more important than gun violence, does not invalidate gun control as a potential and very important path of solution to consider. Odds are the US would see a lot less gun crime if poverty was less of a problem, and if that happened there would be less of a need for gun control. Canada is pretty fucking diverse too but we have fewer guns, less poverty, a shitload more social mobility, better mental healthcare. None of this shit republicans would be willing to pay for. 4) The fact that you can't even refute any of the studies that have been put up here as evidence as to why increased gun regulation and bans doesn't work says a whole lot about your position in general. I didn't see those studies here, I assume you linked pdfs and I missed them and now I'm expected to read 500 pages of biased studies and come up with a retort on the fly. Gun crime went down in Australia after they imposed drastic gun control measures... but again other variables were at play. Intellectual lightweights see "there are other variables" so it's difficult to get a clear picture, test is inconclusive and therefore guns are harmless. It's so fucking easy. But sure I can google up like let's see... "Studies showing that vaccines cause autism", right? That's cool. I can follow that for weeks and find cool new information about this. I can write "Studies showing that gun control works" (or doesn't work, they both pop up into google). Let's see what this says... Tens of studies in a vast array of countries showing gun control reducing gun crime. You have longitudinal public health studies saying "Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively." I can find studies saying the opposite, though. And those are the ones you like. I'm not saying they're worthless and entirely fraudulent, but your eagerness to do nothing is quite disturbing. Here's the crux of the issue; the vast majority of the studies from even liberal criminologists and economists heavily favor gun rights activists. There hasn't been a single study done in the past like 2 decades that has shown me that there is a noticeable effect from implementing more stringent gun control laws. This isn't like there isn't a wealth of information on the subject, there is plenty to go around. However, the vast majority of academic studies I've read (even from the CDC and other institutions that are incredibly biased against guns in general) have supported the position that legal firearms have very little to do with firearm violent crimes. I could find study after study that supports the position that gun control laws are ineffective, and that in fact, the presence of guns in general deters crime. However, I cannot say the same for the opposite side of the argument. What that tells me, is that one side is clearly right, and one side is clearly wrong. And by the way, the CDC were a bunch of assholes in the 90s and were pushing their agenda with a shoddily done study to try and lobby for gun legislation. They were called out on it and that's why they cannot promote gun control. You say there hasn't been a single study done in the past 20 years that shows noticeable effects from implementing more stringent gun control laws, now I don't know what you mean about stringent laws, I personally am in favor of small things like waiting periods, registration of semi-automatic firearms and basic things like that which frankly shouldn't cost too much to implement and they're minor inconveniences to law-abiding citizen. The paper "What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?" does show noticeable effects from implementing some gun control laws, though, and if the media are to be believed it's the "biggest study to date" and it's essentially a review of the scientific literature from 10 different countries, showing a general trend that suggests that some forms of gun control work. One thing I'd like to hear from you is what tangible value does the 2nd amendment have over what other countries do?
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok.
I'm skimming through the paper you put up and it's a load of shit. I'll post why in a second.
|
On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok.
You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies.
You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it.
Let me fucking write it down for you
You: There hasn't been a single study done in the past like 2 decades that has shown me that there is a noticeable effect from implementing more stringent gun control laws
Me: Here's one.
You: So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok.
What the fuck dude?
|
On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it.
This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted.
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf
|
On July 09 2016 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:50 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 02:47 Velr wrote:
And? The people seemed to be ok with it, whats your point? And it hasn't actually affected anything. In fact, more violent crimes are being committed today in the U.K. then there were pre-firearm bans. I wouldn't say the cause is because less civilians are able to protect themselves against an assailant, but I can assure you this, the firearm ban has done little to nothing to stop violent crimes from being committed. Same thing happened in various other cities and states within the United States. They started to begin to enact stricter regulations on firearms, in particular handguns, and then suddenly within a few years violence spikes through the roof. Bans do absolutely nothing. You do realize that gun crime and violent crime are two discrete phenomena, right? I feel like you are twisting language here to make a point. Punching someone in the stomach is a violent crime. Shooting 40 people is a gun crime. Of course a weapons ban doesn't change human nature, it just makes it harder to commit a crime with the banned weapon.
Gun violence is a subset of violence.
On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:45 superstartran wrote:
Antiquated why? Because you said so?
None of the liberal left here has yet to prove an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms and number of violent firearm crimes committed yet. Most of it is just rhetoric and opinions. Meanwhile many of us have provided various different studies that all refute all your claims. Because I said so? No, it's a statement of belief, there's no objective judgment call on whether the 2nd amendment is antiquated or not. As for the 2nd part of what you say, that's you committing the shifting the goalposts fallacy. In order to argue that the 2nd amendment is antiquated, you can go a number of different ways. One of them is, like you said, to make an actual scientific link between number of legal firearms, which is patently hard to do because there's a massive amount of obstruction by the NRA to prevent studies from being made, and other studies that are made are clearly not neutral.
+ Show Spoiler +
On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:
There are other ways to suggest that the 2nd amendment is antiquated though, one of them being that no other country has such a thing being interpreted by their supreme court, and the rest of the world is doing fine without that. The 2nd amendment in the US has no tangible benefits whatsoever, in fact it may have been part of the cause of the massive proliferation of untraceable, eventually black market firearms. If you have a lot of legal firearms that are not registered, a bunch of them will get into the wrong hands. They cease being "legal" firearms but they still originated in the rest of the world.
So you have the 2nd amendment that brings just about nothing positive to the table, and you're asking me to give hard evidence for it being a bad thing? From my perspective it seems to me like YOU need to prove to me that the amendment either: 1) has tangible benefits that I don't see or 2) provably has no downsides.
And Ford is part of the cause of people stealing cars, but not in a meaningful way. If you want to close the private sale loophole for background checks, it would take making sure people aren't paying a $300 tax to transfer a $300 gun. It's more a commerce question than gun control.
I think due to how legal tradition works, regardless of how you feel, to get something to change you'd have to be the one demonstrating why. But here are some reasons people like the 2nd amendment:
1) The actual foundation of civilization is weapons. They're the great equalizer. They stop the big animals from tearing up the little animals.
2) It's not a collectivist country - it's a country built on the rights of the individual.
3) In the US, law enforcement isn't legally obligated to protect you, but the public. Your safety is ultimately your responsibility.
On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:
Put it this way, Canada doesn't have a 2nd amendment and I'm a gun owner, soon I'll be able to purchase a CZ-75 SP01 Shadow, already have a case of reloaded 9mm ready to shoot. What arguments would my government have for putting something similar to the 2nd amendment in the constitution, not knowing the consequences? Would it benefit Canadian society? Not really. Would it have downsides? Maybe. We don't know, the ONE country that has such provisions in their constitution happens to have a massive black market of firearms and absurdly high gun crime rates and they intentionally prevent proper unbiased research for being done.
So a sample size of only 1 country that enshrines the right to bear arms in its constitution and also has crime rates you feel are absurdly high (even though they're dropping, you just see bad things in the news), is really not compelling.
On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:
Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play.
The US is below the world average homicide rate. It has half the world's guns but nowhere near half the world's homicides.
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control."
|
On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf
Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist.
2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buyback
Neill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a
re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519.
Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014.
2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, Autralia
Ozanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related
deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5):
280–286.
1997: -11% child mortality with storage laws
Cummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe
storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997;
278(13):1084–1086.
And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist.
On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control."
Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality.
|
On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist. 2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buybackNeill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519. Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014. 2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, AutraliaOzanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5): 280–286. 1997: -11% child mortality with storage lawsCummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997; 278(13):1084–1086. And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist. Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control." Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality.
Shows it to be taken with a grain of salt?
The author of the study only reported findings from studies that favored his view on guns, and then misrepresented or misreported data from other authors from various other studies. This is exactly why gun rights activists are extremely wary of the liberal left. Because of nonsensical shit like this. The study you just put up isn't even valid because of that.
|
On July 09 2016 04:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist. 2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buybackNeill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519. Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014. 2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, AutraliaOzanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5): 280–286. 1997: -11% child mortality with storage lawsCummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997; 278(13):1084–1086. And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist. On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control." Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality. Shows it to be taken with a grain of salt? The author of the study only reported findings from studies that favored his view on guns, and then misrepresented or misreported data from other authors from various other studies. This is exactly why gun rights activists are extremely wary of the liberal left. Because of nonsensical shit like this. The study you just put up isn't even valid because of that.
1: Asks for evidence
2: Receives evidence
3: Dismisses evidence because it disagrees with his views
4: Tells the giver of evidence that it is invalid because the author ignored evidence that disagreed with his views.
Excellent.
|
On July 09 2016 04:48 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist. 2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buybackNeill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519. Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014. 2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, AutraliaOzanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5): 280–286. 1997: -11% child mortality with storage lawsCummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997; 278(13):1084–1086. And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist. On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control." Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality. Shows it to be taken with a grain of salt? The author of the study only reported findings from studies that favored his view on guns, and then misrepresented or misreported data from other authors from various other studies. This is exactly why gun rights activists are extremely wary of the liberal left. Because of nonsensical shit like this. The study you just put up isn't even valid because of that.
No, the study includes plenty of papers which go against his view on guns, and misrepresented studies too by showing the findings in a more favorable light. Studies on your side are guilty of the exact same type of bias.
It's not a complete construct, it's a biased paper. Read the thing you linked. Then read the papers I linked. Then read the "biased" paper, and follow the dozens of papers it links to that show reduced suicides, reduced homicides, reduced accidents that stemmed from various forms of gun regulations. Are ALL those papers, a few of which were misrepresented (possibly by mistake) by Santaella-Tenorio and al. "fake"? No.
Want me to pull every study that shows positive results from some gun control measures? I linked 3. There's dozens more, literally. Studies that you just said didn't exist.
|
On July 09 2016 04:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:48 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist. 2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buybackNeill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519. Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014. 2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, AutraliaOzanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5): 280–286. 1997: -11% child mortality with storage lawsCummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997; 278(13):1084–1086. And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist. On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control." Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality. Shows it to be taken with a grain of salt? The author of the study only reported findings from studies that favored his view on guns, and then misrepresented or misreported data from other authors from various other studies. This is exactly why gun rights activists are extremely wary of the liberal left. Because of nonsensical shit like this. The study you just put up isn't even valid because of that. No, the study includes plenty of papers which go against his view on guns, and misrepresented studies too by showing the findings in a more favorable light. Studies on your side are guilty of the exact same type of bias. It's not a complete construct, it's a biased paper. Read the thing you linked. Then read the papers I linked. Then read the "biased" paper, and follow the dozens of papers it links to that show reduced suicides, reduced homicides, reduced accidents that stemmed from various forms of gun regulations. Are ALL those papers, a few of which were misrepresented (possibly by mistake) by Santaella-Tenorio and al. "fake"? No.
This is a joke right?
+ Show Spoiler +
Santaella-Tenorio et al. did not include 7 peer-reviewed
papers that were published during the time period that they
covered and that showed statistically significant benefits
from right-to-carry laws: Bartley and Cohen (13), Lott (14),
Benson and Mast (15), Gius (16), Lott and Whitley (17), Lott
and Whitley (18), and Moody et al. (19). On the other hand,
they include nonpublished (Aneja et al. (20)) and nonrefereed
papers (Ayres and Donohue (11), Donohue (21), and Ayres
and Donohue (22)).
Santaella-Tenorio et al. also omitted papers that did not fit
their views in other areas. For example, Lott (5) and Moody
and Marvell (6) examined the simultaneous impact of multiple
laws (indeed, more laws than cited by Santaella-Tenorio
et al.), but these papers were excluded. All of the above types
of problems apply to their discussions of the assault weapon
ban, Brady background checks, background checks on private
transfers of guns, the impact of preventing access to
guns by children on accidents and suicides, and prevention
of suicides more generally
Misreported information or was just blatantly biased
+ Show Spoiler +In the articles by Plassmann and Whitley (2) and Plassmann
and Tideman (7), the authors argued that weighted least square
estimates bias “will bias the estimated benefit of the concealed
handgun law towards finding an increase in crime” (2, p. 14).
They argued that the estimates should be determined using a
count data approach. Yet, Santaella-Tenorio et al. only reported
their simple dummy variable estimates using weighted least
squares. Santaella-Tenorio et al. misreported the weighted
least square estimate from Table 3a of the article by Plassmann
and Whitley (2), making it appear that the results included zero
in the 95% confidence interval even though the result was statistically
significantly different from zero at the 5% level for a
2-tailed t-test. However, Plassmann and Whitley argue that the
Poisson estimate in Table 8, which was statistically significant
at better than the 1% level, should have been reported
This isn't just he ignored some evidence, the author blatantly misrepresented or misreported data on purpose.
|
On July 09 2016 04:54 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 04:52 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:48 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:41 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:33 superstartran wrote:On July 09 2016 04:29 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2016 04:22 superstartran wrote:
So you've brought one study versus like the 30 I've posted in this thread alone. Ok. You specifically said "there hasn't been a study in 20 years..." and so I showed you one which actually is a compilation (read literature review) of one hundred and sixty (160) studies which according to the people who made this longitudinal study shows that you're wrong. So it's one review of 160 studies. You linked 30 that I don't see, then said there isn't one that says the contrary (which I proved wrong by linking one). Now you criticize the fact that it's only one. But it has 160 studies inside it. This explains it better than I ever could. There are some serious issues with the survey/study you posted. http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Am.-J.-Epidemiol.-2016-Lott-Moody-Whitley-aje.pdf Every single study in the world is subject to those kinds of criticisms which don't invalidate them. It shows that it's to be taken with a grain of salt. It argues that the positive outcomes are overrepresented, which may be true - nonetheless there ARE positive outcomes which you argued don't exist. 2014: -40% gun homicide rate in Australia after the buybackNeill C, Leigh A. Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian firearms buyback. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1011519. Published September 5, 2007. Accessed December 12, 2014. 2004: -17% homicide rate in Victoria, AutraliaOzanne-Smith J, Ashby K, Newstead S, et al. Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform. Inj Prev. 2004;10(5): 280–286. 1997: -11% child mortality with storage lawsCummings P, Grossman DC, Rivara FP, et al. State gun safe storage laws and child mortality due to firearms. JAMA. 1997; 278(13):1084–1086. And that's just a quick glance. There's more for suicide and other shit. So these studies that haven't existed in 20 years do exist. On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:
What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control." Developed countries. The US has one of the highest gun crime rates in the developed world. But this whole things comes back to you trying to muddy the water with "oh look at all these variables". Sure, guns is not the only factor to consider. I've said that and it's obvious. I even say specifically that it's not the biggest one. But if I said income inequality is the biggest factor in gun crime in the US, I assume that perhaps you and at least most of the people who share your view about firearms happen to be unwilling to work on income inequality. Shows it to be taken with a grain of salt? The author of the study only reported findings from studies that favored his view on guns, and then misrepresented or misreported data from other authors from various other studies. This is exactly why gun rights activists are extremely wary of the liberal left. Because of nonsensical shit like this. The study you just put up isn't even valid because of that. No, the study includes plenty of papers which go against his view on guns, and misrepresented studies too by showing the findings in a more favorable light. Studies on your side are guilty of the exact same type of bias. It's not a complete construct, it's a biased paper. Read the thing you linked. Then read the papers I linked. Then read the "biased" paper, and follow the dozens of papers it links to that show reduced suicides, reduced homicides, reduced accidents that stemmed from various forms of gun regulations. Are ALL those papers, a few of which were misrepresented (possibly by mistake) by Santaella-Tenorio and al. "fake"? No. This is a joke right? + Show Spoiler +
Santaella-Tenorio et al. did not include 7 peer-reviewed
papers that were published during the time period that they
covered and that showed statistically significant benefits
from right-to-carry laws: Bartley and Cohen (13), Lott (14),
Benson and Mast (15), Gius (16), Lott and Whitley (17), Lott
and Whitley (18), and Moody et al. (19). On the other hand,
they include nonpublished (Aneja et al. (20)) and nonrefereed
papers (Ayres and Donohue (11), Donohue (21), and Ayres
and Donohue (22)).
Santaella-Tenorio et al. also omitted papers that did not fit
their views in other areas. For example, Lott (5) and Moody
and Marvell (6) examined the simultaneous impact of multiple
laws (indeed, more laws than cited by Santaella-Tenorio
et al.), but these papers were excluded. All of the above types
of problems apply to their discussions of the assault weapon
ban, Brady background checks, background checks on private
transfers of guns, the impact of preventing access to
guns by children on accidents and suicides, and prevention
of suicides more generally
Misreported information or was just blatantly biased + Show Spoiler +In the articles by Plassmann and Whitley (2) and Plassmann
and Tideman (7), the authors argued that weighted least square
estimates bias “will bias the estimated benefit of the concealed
handgun law towards finding an increase in crime” (2, p. 14).
They argued that the estimates should be determined using a
count data approach. Yet, Santaella-Tenorio et al. only reported
their simple dummy variable estimates using weighted least
squares. Santaella-Tenorio et al. misreported the weighted
least square estimate from Table 3a of the article by Plassmann
and Whitley (2), making it appear that the results included zero
in the 95% confidence interval even though the result was statistically
significantly different from zero at the 5% level for a
2-tailed t-test. However, Plassmann and Whitley argue that the
Poisson estimate in Table 8, which was statistically significant
at better than the 1% level, should have been reported
You said he ignored all papers showing the contrary. He omitted some, not all.
You know who omitted ALL of something? You, when you said no such papers existed. If nothing else, this paper shows that there are examples of other studies actually showing positive benefits from gun control laws. So even if the authors messed around in bad faith rather than by making mistakes, we still have those other case studies that show that you're wrong.
|
On July 09 2016 04:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 03:08 Djzapz wrote:
Hell, the rest of the world is doing better in terms of gun violence and generally overall violence. The shootings that happen in the US is absolutely unique to the United States in the first world, and the feeble defense you always hear is "it's not the guns fault" and "you can't establish a scientific link between gun violence and legal guns" because there are other variables at play. The US is below the world average homicide rate. It has half the world's guns but nowhere near half the world's homicides. What do you mean by "first world," are you talking about "developed" countries? Are you talking about NATO countries? I assume not because that ought to be irrelevant. Or are you specifically defining "first world" circularly to mean countries that already have low crime rates? Russia and Mexico have significantly higher homicide rates, and they're wealthy. Mexico is an OECD country. Brazil and Argentina also have higher rates, and Brazil suffers from gun crime especially despite having strong "gun control."
I think Argentina is the only country in the Very High HDI category with higher homicide rate than US. And there is no country in the Very High Inequality-adjusted HDI category with a higher homicide rate than the US. But if you wanna compare yourself to 'wealthy' Mexico and other countries to which the US has a massive education/poverty rate/corruption index advantage, go ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg)
