Gun Laws

[Pretzel]

Gun ban isn't going to happen in US.   So, I am talking hypothetically.   If gun is completely banned but for hunters, gun death for all reasons (inc. accidents with hunting rifle) will be reduced significantly.   

Why wouldn't people just shift to using hunting rifles to cause said deaths? I don't follow the broken logic in your argument very well.

[rkim291968]

Still talking hypothetically, that gun ban works in US and the only people with guns are hunters, and criminal elements.   Gun death will be reduced in many ways.  1st, there will be very limited accidental deaths (ordinary people - a vast majority) by gun.   Ditto for suicides although some will still find a way to kill themselves effectively.  I am assuming that guns will be carried by organized crimes rather than two bit hoodlum out to rob someone in street.   Gun being rare means it can be expensive to obtain.   Gun related death by hands of criminal element will be reduced.   I am not talking out of my ass on this.  This is reality with countries where the gun ban is totally  effective.   Even gang members seem to fight with knives and other weapons than guns.   Then again, this scenario will never happen in the US.   US is too large, too many people to effectively carry out gun ban.  

 

My last post guys.   I think some of you will never understand unless you grew up and live in a country where gun is totally banned, and yearly gun death rate is near non-existent.  

Edited October 13, 2015 by rkim291968

[iacas]

Still talking hypothetically, that gun ban works in US and the only people with guns are hunters, and criminal elements.   Gun death will be reduced in many ways.  1st, there will be very limited accidental deaths (ordinary people - a vast majority) by gun.   Ditto for suicides although some will still find a way to kill themselves effectively.  I am assuming that guns will be carried by organized crimes rather than two bit hoodlum out to rob someone in street.

You don't seem to understand that the vast majority of murders by gun in the U.S. are the criminal element, and you already state that they won't give up their guns.

The last time I checked, too, opinions are split on whether the gun bans in the UK and Australia have actually worked at reducing violent crimes.

You see, there are people - sociologists, criminologists, etc. - who have studied these things at length. They aren't anywhere near as sure as you seem to be, and some of them even disagree with you (though like those who agree, they aren't as confident as you seem to be).

You're talking about a very, very complex problem, and stating "simple as that." It is not.

[saevel25]

You don't seem to understand that the vast majority of murders by gun in the U.S. are the criminal element, and you already state that they won't give up their guns.

This was from 1997. I suspect the means don't change much over the years.  

40% of guns were gotten illegally. Another 40% got them from a family member or friend. I think if they didn't have that option a lot of them would have gotten them illegally. 


 

[mdl]

I'm not going to enter into the debate in terms of giving my opinion.  But I can't help from pointing out that a negative correlation in the US between guns per capita and crime rates or gun crime rates, or a positive correlation between stricture of gun laws and (gun) crime rates, says literally nothing about whether or not increase or decrease (or outlawing) guns within a given context will increase or decrease (gun) crime in that context.  The mixed relationships internationally likewise tell us nearly nothing about the question at hand

This article posted by @saevel25, for instance: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf, is a law article that reads like a pro-gun polemic, so makes me suspicious (though to be fair it's a large review that cites at least some other non-law articles that I haven't delved into).  But taken at face value, all it's doing is pointing out over and over again that if you look across the globe there is no universal association between stricture of gun laws and armed crime rates.  But you'd expect wildly varying cultures to be different, and the stories told range over hundreds of years and disparate cultures/geographies/histories, and the raw correlations tell you little.  Even if they were universally negative between gun control levels and armed crime rates, that would tell you little about whether the gun controls are causing reduced armed crime.

In fact, I'd argue that it's nearly certain that those relationships in the US (negative correlation at the state level between gun ownership and armed crime, positive correlation between stricture of gun control and armed crime) are caused almost entirely by the fact that US states with larger than average number of guns are more rural with fewer big cities and so have less armed crime, while states with stricter gun control laws have those laws because of exactly those same characteristics.  In other words, it's entirely confounded when you look at the raw correlation.

@saevel25 dismisses the study that points in this direction (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409) because... they adjust for other state level characteristics?  I don't know anything about his statistical knowledge, but preferring raw correlations over (properly and disinterestedly) adjusted associations is laughable, to use his term for the summary of the analytic method in that paper.  Everyone's agreeing there are cultural and demographic and economic and historical inputs into the determination of armed crime rates.  Shouldn't we try to account for those as much as possible to try to isolate the association between gun availability/ownership and armed crime rates?  That paper isn't available for free, so we only have the abstract to go off of.  But negative binomial regression with GEE errors and state level demo/econ adjustments is a totally reasonable analytic approach for trying to isolate this association as much as possible.

Note I'm not claiming that the second article definitively supersedes the first (or other research where the authors make similar arguments).  Just that you can't laugh off competing research because you don't understand their methods, or think you do and are misinformed, or are making unreasonable, biased assumptions about the analysis used.

[saevel25]

Note I'm not claiming that the second article definitively supersedes the first (or other research where the authors make similar arguments).  Just that you can't laugh off competing research because you don't understand their methods, or think you do and are misinformed, or are making unreasonable, biased assumptions about the analysis used.

My biggest issue with the 2nd article is that they make a specific claim and conclusion,

"This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%...

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

Meaning that there is a direct near 1% to 1% relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide. In their conclusion they state that the states with higher rates of gun ownership had much larger number of deaths from firearm related homicides. Now, you should be able to replicate that claim. The fact is you can't. 

I could understand if they said something like, In urban areas with this amount of population density you see a correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides. Yet they didn't. They made a very specific claim. That if you increase your gun ownership by 1% you will see a 1% increase in gun deaths. Yet there are states with extremely low gun ownership, like California that have a lot of gun violence versus a place like Ohio which has the same population density, 11% more gun ownership yet 42% less gun related homicides. 

By the claim of that study Ohio should have 11% more gun deaths than California. It sounds like they made a claim that should be to a specific criteria yet they didn't specify the criteria. 

In fact, I'd argue that it's nearly certain that those relationships in the US (negative correlation at the state level between gun ownership and armed crime, positive correlation between stricture of gun control and armed crime) are caused almost entirely by the fact that US states with larger than average number of guns are more rural with fewer big cities and so have less armed crime, while states with stricter gun control laws have those laws because of exactly those same characteristics.  In other words, it's entirely confounded when you look at the raw correlation.

Ok go ahead, argue it :) 

[mdl]

@saevel25, you don't understand regression.  That statement you quoted from the paper simply states, with the forthright caveat that this is an association with unknown causation, that if you take into account demographic, economic, cultural, etc factors for which we have reasonable state level measures, there is a nearly 1:1 linear association between gun ownership rates and armed crime rates.  This takes into account all the state level metrics that were included in the analysis.  Claiming that the fact that Ohio and California have the same state wide population density but disparate gun ownership rates and armed crime rates disproves there analysis is just another deep misunderstanding of the analysis they performed.

My argument about confounding is just that I would have guessed from the start that the authors of the paper you're disputing would find exactly what they did.  If you control for things along the lines of percent of population in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, some measures of minority proportions and poverty proportions, probably a few other things I'm not thinking of (maybe percent of population in "large" cities), then the negative association between the raw gun ownership rates and crime rates is at least washed out, probably slightly reversed.  Which is exactly as they found.

[saevel25]

@saevel25, you don't understand regression.  That statement you quoted from the paper simply states, with the forthright caveat that this is an association with unknown causation, that if you take into account demographic, economic, cultural, etc factors for which we have reasonable state level measures, there is a nearly 1:1 linear association between gun ownership rates and armed crime rates.

I understand regression. I just don't get why it needs to be used here. From what I can tell there is no solid application for this study. 

Then why not state factors needed for the 1:1 relationship? Instead they make a generalized statement of if you increase gun ownership by 1% you get a 1% increase in gun deaths.

I for one would like to know the  factors they took out or considered to help get this relationship. Also wouldn't knowing the demographics, economic, cultural, ect.. factors show some causation. 

Still, they literally said, and I am quoting word for word here, 

"we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

Not, states with these or with out these factors had higher firearm related deaths. When you actually look at the data it is not true. You can not argue your way past this statement. You can go right now and look at state by state data on gun ownership and gun related homicides and that general statement is not true. 

My argument about confounding is just that I would have guessed from the start that the authors of the paper you're disputing would find exactly what they did.  If you control for things along the lines of percent of population in cities, suburbs, and rural areas, some measures of minority proportions and poverty proportions, probably a few other things I'm not thinking of (maybe percent of population in "large" cities), then the negative association between the raw gun ownership rates and crime rates is at least washed out, probably slightly reversed.  Which is exactly as they found.

If they did find this correlation then how does it help gun control? By what you said, I just can't assume lowering gun ownership by 1% means a 1% reduction in firearm deaths because I don't know the underlying factors they took into consideration to find this relationship.  

Look at it this way. If Ohio decided to implement a plan to lower gun ownership by 10% will they see a 10% reduction in fire-arm deaths? The studies claims they should. 

If they came out with a study that said if you lowered gun ownership in these certain demographics then you will lower gun related deaths by this certain amount. That might be more beneficial because you can isolate areas where they really might need gun control. Or it might show you, hey there is a lot of gun violence related around urban areas with high poverty levels. 

Another question is, after all that data analysis and taking out certain factors what is the actual gun ownership total left that they studied? Let's say only 10% of the gun ownership fits their 1:1 relationship. That's honestly not really significant at all. That's like practicing your 15-20 FT putting in golf.

In the end this study doesn't warrant any serious attention because it doesn't list the factors, which might be more important. It makes generalized statements that are not applicable in real world conditions. 
 

[newtogolf]

Most studies also assume the an increase in gun control laws will be observed equally by law abiding citizens and criminals, which I believe is a complete fallacy given the number of gun related crimes and deaths in areas that already have strict gun control laws like NY, Chicago and Washington DC.

Criminals will always look for an edge and guns provide them that edge, especially if laws are passed to ensure the majority of the public is unarmed.

[mdl]

@saevel25, I don't have time to write an explanation long enough that I think it would actually be educational to you and others.  But I'll just note that your response is again rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of regression, analysis of multivariate observational data with an unknown causal graph, and what the authors are claiming to have found (in the abstract, which is unfortunately all we can see without buying it, unless someone has university library access or something and wants to share).

 

[saevel25]

@saevel25, I don't have time to write an explanation long enough that I think it would actually be educational to you and others.  But I'll just note that your response is again rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of regression, analysis of multivariate observational data with an unknown causal graph, and what the authors are claiming to have found (in the abstract, which is unfortunately all we can see without buying it, unless someone has university library access or something and wants to share).

Then they shouldn't be making generalized statements in the conclusion/results for a general summary of their study like that with out explaining exactly what the context of the statement is meant to be in. I understand they were trying to get rid of all the "noise" surrounding gun violence. 

It's good to reiterate the context so you paint a clear picture of what is actually going on. In the end you get a dozen or more internet articles written saying, "Harvard study says this and gun ownership equals gun deaths, take that NRA, HA-HA!" Yet for all we know the relationship could only be related to 30% of gun owners out there who fit into the context of their study, and who do not fit into the noise they are trying to get rid of with their regression. 

I am hoping the people who wrote the Harvard Study were unbiased enough to explain the exact context of their work. They clearly didn't do it in that general summary when they posted it on that website. 

[CoachB25]

I've read the majority of this thread and can't believe how naive people are.  I grew up in a housing project.  Not only did we need to defend our self, we made it clear that we were armed and dangerous.  I've had several guns pulled on me with one being stuck in my back.  My regret was that I was not armed at that time.  I was defenseless.  I've been stabbed as well.  I worked hard and got myself out of that neighborhood by working night shift and going to college during the day.  I am armed and dangerous.  Don't come to my house with ill intent. 

You anti gun people, I pray that you will never need a weapon.  However, do you really believe you are protected by the Police.  I have all of the respect possible for Police Officers but they are reactive in nature in times of crisis.  I had a bad guy threaten to kill my family.  Fortunately, the FBI became involved.  One of the first things they did was to ask me if I was armed.  I assured them I was a mini army.  Every room of my house has a weapon ready in case the bad guy showed up.  Long story short, the bad guy is now doing 25 years in prison.  Again, I pray that you and your family will never have to go through this.  I assure you it isn't fun.  I also assure you that had the bad guy showed up, he would not have left the same.

Caveat to the story - I started shooting guns/rifles at the age of 7.  I took courses in gun safety all my life.  My family is very pro gun and also encourage gun safety and education.  My guns now have gun locks in place in the house with the exception of one.  There is evil in this world.  These shooting happed becaue of evil people.  Criminals are criminals because they break the law.  Laws to hinder gun ownership and use only help criminals.  I will seek my conceal and carry permit soon.  You want me to do that and be there if the bad guy is around. 

[Mr. Desmond]

I am interested in how people define "anti-gun."

[Mr. Desmond]

This was amusing ... depending on your cultural point of view

 

 

 

 

[Jeremie Boop]

This was amusing ... depending on your cultural point of view

 

 

 

 

Not really, because none of that is actually accurate anyway.

[Mr. Desmond]

Not really, because none of that is actually accurate anyway.

It's called satire.

Has anyone made the connection that these mass murders are mostly committed by young males unable to connect with females ... besides Bill Maher? Yes, I know, people either enjoy his satire, musing, or dislike him intensely... but maybe he has a point ...  blue balls, mental health, and our society making it seem like everyone is getting lucky ... except these guys.

Edited October 19, 2015 by iacas
embedded video

[phillyk]

It's called satire.

Has anyone made the connection that these mass murders are mostly committed by young males unable to connect with females ... besides Bill Maher? Yes, I know, people either enjoy his satire, musing, or dislike him intensely... but maybe he has a point ...  blue balls, mental health, and our society making it seem like everyone is getting lucky ... except these guys.

Funny thing, I'm going to see his show tonight in Vancouver BC... 

[saevel25]

It's called satire.

Has anyone made the connection that these mass murders are mostly committed by young males unable to connect with females ... besides Bill Maher?

Bill Maher is an ass clown.