Quote :

"its a press release, so this is exactly the precision you should expect."

It's a press release released by the researchers. We're not discussing a CNN article.

Quote :

"if speed is the cause of traffic accident fatalities in the majority of cases*, then research into things that effect speeding is worthwhile even if it ignores other factors."

That analogy fails:

a) The better analogy for what we're discussing would be studying the relationship between speeding and speeding-related traffic deaths. Which of course would be a pointless tautology, correct?

b) Researching into things that effect speeding is much more broad than what Webster is doing. Webster's not researching what things effect firearm homicide.

c) No one's arguing that speeding might deter some traffic death.

d) No one's arguing that there's any significant interchangeability between various sorts of traffic deaths.


And any defense of controlling for non-firearm-related crime?




[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 1:40 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2014 1:28:59 PM

Quote :

"It's a press release released by the researchers. We're not discussing a CNN article."

the researchers probably didn't write that press release, it was probably a PR person for that foundation. that's the kind of language you should expect. if you read the entire thing there isn't anything wrong with their analysis, but if you instead criticize your own conclusions about it then it has problems.

Quote :

"And any defense of controlling for non-firearm-related crime?"

sentence fragment. i have no idea what you are asking.

there is not a problem with looking at the effects of fire-arm related deregulation on firearm-related crime, no

[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 2:03 PM. Reason : maybe post some more unsourced imgur photos?]

3/12/2014 2:01:38 PM

Quote :

"but if you instead criticize your own conclusions about it then it has problems"

"Repeal of Missouri's Background Check Law Associated with Increase in State's Murders."

But I'm not allowed to use the title of their press release, because "hey, it's a press release."

Quote :

"if you read the entire thing there isn't anything wrong with their analysis"

Read what? All we have to go on is the press release I'm not allowed to take seriously. The study hasn't been released yet.

Quote :

"sentence fragment. i have no idea what you are asking. "

You've tried to defend their practice of selecting for firearm homicide, only. I'm wondering what you think of their practice of selecting for firearm homicide and controlling for other forms of violent crime. In other words, when comparing states, they're only studying whether firearm deaths occur at rates disproportionate to states' overall crime rates. Suddenly Michigan looks ok in comparison to Wyoming because "hey, gun violence."

Quote :

"maybe post some more unsourced imgur photos?"

Just in case you missed it: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_04.html

But if we're just throwing out fringe sources and folding our arms, here's Kates and Mauser: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf




[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2014 3:35:15 PM

in that first imgur photo, how to they obtain data for guns in the household? i'm assuming a facebook survey since there wasn't a source.

Quote :

"You've tried to defend their practice of selecting for firearm homicide, only. I'm wondering what you think of their practice of selecting for firearm homicide and controlling for other forms of violent crime. In other words, when comparing states, they're only studying whether firearm deaths occur at rate disproportionate to the states' overall crime rates. Suddenly Michigan looks ok in comparison to Wyoming."

its a study about straw sales of guns, it's trying to see if that has an effect on gun-related violence. so yes, this is very reasonable, the results wouldn't mean anything otherwise. from that press release:

Quote :

"Webster and colleagues found that the spike in murders in Missouri following the PTP handgun law repeal only occurred for murders in Missouri committed with a firearm and was widespread across the state's counties. F­­ollowing the change in Missouri's gun laws, none of the states bordering Missouri experienced significant increases in murder rates and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by over five percent. "

read that part again and see if maybe you can start to understand

[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2014 3:43:32 PM

This survey: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

But if you're thinking there's a positive relationship between firearm ownership and murder rate before controlling for any other variables, you haven't devoted much mental effort to the subject. Because hell-- look at all the murders occurring on Wyoming's streets.

Quote :

""Webster and colleagues found that the spike in murders in Missouri following the PTP handgun law repeal only occurred for murders in Missouri committed with a firearm and was widespread across the state's counties. Following the change in Missouri's gun laws, none of the states bordering Missouri experienced significant increases in murder rates and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by over five percent. ""

I get more confused every time I read it, because I can't decide when I'm supposed to read "murders" as "gun murders" and when I'm supposed to read "murders" as "murder murders."

[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2014 3:58:33 PM

i was just pointing out why a lmgtfy response when asked for sources for that first imgur link was not sufficient. i'm assuming you were right about the fbi data, although it can only possibly be an assumption, but you never even explained the rest. i can only assume the survey you posted above is the same one.

basically, i was pointing out how unsourced graphs are pointless, and presenting one as such is a logical fallacy.

as a serious response it wasn't relevant to the concurrent discussion unless you first demonstrated a relationship between gun control laws and percent of homes with guns

I'm assuming that the quoted part of the press release has clarified things for you regarding the study on straw sales?

3/12/2014 4:07:05 PM

Quote :

"basically, i was pointing out how unsourced graphs are pointless"

I thought I was reminding everyone of something that was already widely understood, re: the graph showing no relationship between gun ownership and murder rates (before controlling for socioeconomic factors). It really should be known to anyone adding their opinion to a gun control thread.

Quote :

"and presenting one as such is a logical fallacy"

Lolz-- which one?


[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 4:16 PM. Reason : Lazyum Argumentium]

3/12/2014 4:15:41 PM

Quote :

"I get more confused every time I read it,"

I'll try to explain:

Following the repeal of PTP regulations the number of murders with firearms increased. By controlling for other factors and other types of crimes, they can claim that this is not part of a more broad rise in violent crime. Without looking at only gun crime, they would have no idea if any increase or decrease in gun crime could be attributed to already-present trends in violent crime.
It turns out that this increase was not seen in other types of murder (i.e. the increase in gun murder is probably not from general trends or other factors) and was not seen in bordering states (i.e. similar states and even the US also saw a general decrease in murder).

you can't make that kind of conclusion without controlling for the type of crime and other factors

[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ^type of ethos fallacy similar to appeal to authority, use of meaningless data to distract and imply]

3/12/2014 4:24:51 PM

My last response was snark.

My last real response wasn't in reference to the Missouri study, in particular:

"In other words, when comparing states, they're only studying whether firearm deaths occur at rates disproportionate to states' overall crime rates. Suddenly Michigan looks ok in comparison to Wyoming because "hey, gun violence.""

3/12/2014 4:33:34 PM

so you can understand the quoted part of that release, and you still can't understand why they controlled for other types of murder? are you just trolling?

3/12/2014 4:38:20 PM

You're using "compare to" and "control for" interchangeably.

This study notes that firearm murders rose while non-firearms murders remained steady. That's a comparison, and it's a fair one. If the figures remained at their 2008 levels, it'd certainly be something worth noting. I'm open to the idea that background checks matter, but the notion that one state could repeal a dumb, not-really-a-background-check law and see a profound impact within a year is one I'm not going to take Webster's word on.

The fact that the murder rate really did happen to increase (in the time frame chosen by the authors) masks their stupid methodology.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: the MO background check law is done away with in 2007 and the overall murder rate goes down by 10%. The firearm rate goes down by only 8%. Well shit, Webster's press release will still read: "Repeal of Missouri's Background Check Law Associated with Increase in State's Murders."



[Edited on March 12, 2014 at 6:44 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2014 6:28:29 PM

that's not the situation, read it again

3/12/2014 7:00:26 PM

That's not a helpful reply.

3/12/2014 7:34:02 PM

I'm still not convinced that you understand that quoted part of the release, because you generally have seemed reasonable enough on this site that I would expect you to understand their methodology based on that quoted part.

3/13/2014 11:31:46 AM

GUNNN CUNTROLL IS USING YER TWWOOO HANDZ. WE DON NEED OBUMMERKER TELLIN US WUT WE CAN AN CAINT DO

3/13/2014 3:10:41 PM

I am shocked this anti gun politician is a hypocrite.

California Democrat And Gun Control Advocate Charged With Arms Trafficking

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25428957/state-sen-leland-yee-indicted-arms-trafficking-corruption

3/27/2014 8:14:13 AM

would ya look at that?

3/27/2014 8:38:30 AM

I'm not surprised a closet gun nut could be so corrupt.

Also, i'd bet the NSA's wiretapping program was involved in that bust.

[Edited on March 27, 2014 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

3/27/2014 9:04:13 PM

incoming!

4/2/2014 11:12:11 PM

ban guns in the military!

4/3/2014 11:19:05 AM

Another shooting in a gun free zone where the shooter kills himself after being confronted by someone else with a gun. I am not sure what that guy didn't understand about gun free zone, didn't he know he wasn't allowed to have a firearm there?

Oh and let's not also look over the mental illness issue...

4/3/2014 11:39:28 AM

People with mental issues (like this guy supposedly had) shouldn't be able to buy guns so easily (i know, easier said than done)

4/3/2014 12:04:52 PM

Aggrieved army dude shoots up army base. I'm sure the shooting venue had more to do with the location of his perceived tormentors than the presence or lack of a gun free zone.

4/3/2014 12:59:24 PM

Same bat time. Same bat channel.

4/3/2014 1:05:11 PM

^^^ People with mental issues bad enough to bar them from owning a gun shouldn't be roaming the damned streets in the first place

4/4/2014 11:25:29 PM

Quote :

"The politician who introduced anti-gun-violence legislation is now charged with trafficking in firearms and public corruption in an FBI undercover operation that could land him in prison for years."

Sounds like the case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

This is the real life Gustavo Fring

4/6/2014 12:00:25 AM

^^ I'd argue most of the populous doesn't have the mental faculties to own a gun. George Zimmerman didn't, that other guy in fl didn't, most police officers in California, that FBI agent interrogating tsarnayevs acquaintance. We are not a country that has the responsibility to own guns, as the statistics demonstrate.

4/6/2014 1:01:43 AM

I mean, without any doubt, a solid majority of the population is way too fucking stupid to be allowed to operate a car, let alone a motorcycle, or probably to be let out into public unsupervised at all. Seriously, I don't know how I don't see a fatal tragedy of some sort every single day, because goddamn, people are dumb.

...but I really, really hate when my rights as an individual are held back by society's most incompetent common denominators.

4/6/2014 1:11:35 AM

Gun owner here... An ar-15 for full disclosure

Duke, your last statement made me think (I don't consider your opinion to be unique, for whatever reason this thought process was triggered after reading your post, though).... Do we consider fire arm ownership to be a right at its most basic sense? An unalienable right? Or do we consider it to be a right strictly because of what some guys decided hundreds of years ago? If the second amendment never was ratified, would people be so adamant about owning guns?

I havent ever met anyone who was against the restrictions placed on automatic weapons, so that inherently means people see elasticity in the amendment as written. So why are people so against expansion of restrictions into other weapons classifications?

I'm not specifically advocating for anything, just a tangent where I'm curious what other people think about what really drives peoples motives with respect to gun ownership.

4/6/2014 2:06:30 AM

^^ the car thing will be solved In a few years because of self driving cars.

We could add tech to guns, but part of the allure of guns is their rote mechanical nature.

But I agree, it's a tragedy when we lose things because of the lowest common denominator. I miss real fireworks and cap guns and pseudo ephedrine.

This is why the NRA is the worse thing for gun rights. After a tragic school shooting, their big statement is to arm teachers. They don't look at any real solutions. They don't talk about accountability, they don't try to present their constituents as reasonable, they don't admit any flaws or issues at all, and it sets the preps the politics to become galvanized.

4/6/2014 2:26:56 AM

^^
It's politics. It's people trying to control the mob by using emotion to create entrenched blocs.

The Constitution as written had the president chosen by electoral college, the Vice President was elected and could be of a different ideology, the house was elected, and the senators were chosen by state congress. There was a healthy balance between leaders being chose democratically, and leaders being chosen by "experts". The founding fathers, despite being deeply flawed, did see some merit in "less" democracy. So did Plato.

Over the years, this system has degraded to favor mob rule. I think the problem with our politics is too much democracy, too much mob rule and pandering to the masses. I'd be hesitant to have the president chosen today, but I see value in having the senate not directly elected, and having the vp elected separately, more in line with what the Constitution originally stated.

4/6/2014 2:39:14 AM

The problem today is most certainly not a problem of "too much democracy." It's "too little democracy."

If we had "too much democracy," then we'd already have stricter gun legislation, because the polls show that a majority of Americans see that as a reasonable course of action. This will never happen, though, because our "democracy" is fully owned by lobbies and corporate interests, and not at all influenced by the dictates of the people.

4/6/2014 12:54:09 PM

I'd say we have partly a problem of too little democracy just as you describe, and above all else, too stupid and ignorant an electorate. That's the root of just about every other problem.

Many gun control initiatives enjoy a popular majority because people don't fully understand them. (I mean, the same holds true for all kinds of stuff, but this is the gun control thread, and you brought that specific issue up). There's also the tyranny of the majority issue; just because it's supported by a majority doesn't mean we should do it. That's why we have (a) a representative democracy, and (b) a deliberately cumbersome Constitution, which we largely grossly pervert or flat-out ignore (which is a 3rd huge issue).

Quote :

"We could add tech to guns, but part of the allure of guns is their rote mechanical nature. "

There is an element of that, I think. I think there's an element of appreciation for the high-tech, too, but many do like the mechanical purity, for lack of a better description. A decent part of the opposition to technological safety solutions is due to deep-seated (and frankly, not unfounded) distrust of gov't regulation of firearms. That, and in the case of firearms intended for self-defense (most handguns; many evil "assault weapons", for example), an aversion to any additional point of failure or additional thing to fumble with if the weapon is needed right now.

I mean, some people prefer handguns without mechanical safeties, for fear that they would forget to disengage it under duress, that it would take additional time, or that they might fumble with it under duress. That is not my opinion; I think that those concerns can be mitigated by practice and by choosing a gun with user-friendly safeties, and then the concerns are greatly outweighed by the safety benefits.

(on the other hand, some people, usually women or those not familiar with firearms, eschew guns that don't have manual safeties, which greatly reduces their choices. most handguns either don't have safeties, or have automatic safeties that are disengaged naturally when you grip the gun and squeeze the trigger normally). I maintain that these people should either practice more or just carry pepper spray or a TASER if they're that uncomfortable with firearms.

Quote :

"But I agree, it's a tragedy when we lose things because of the lowest common denominator. I miss real fireworks and cap guns and pseudo ephedrine. "

Damn right..and you mean real ephedrine.

Quote :

"This is why the NRA is the worse thing for gun rights. After a tragic school shooting, their big statement is to arm teachers. They don't look at any real solutions. They don't talk about accountability, they don't try to present their constituents as reasonable, they don't admit any flaws or issues at all, and it sets the preps the politics to become galvanized. "

Ehh...yes and no, I think. I'm a reluctant NRA member. I had always been too put-off by them to join; I joined in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting when there was talk in FL of reinstating duty to retreat. Fuck that. I was glad to be a member during the post-Sandy Hook push for gun bans, too, my problems with the organization and eye-rolling at many of its members notwithstanding.

That said, yes, the NRA is full-retard many times when they shouldn't be...but on the other hand, so is all of their active opposition. Fuck the NRA, and fuck all the gun-control types, too. There isn't much that really can be done, anyway, so fuck it, let both sides stalemate. Maybe there would be a small handful of small things that we could do if the antis could be trusted, but they can't be at all, so fuck it. I probably won't re-up my NRA membership unless/until there's a big push for gun control, though.

I still think that the biggest place to attack the problem is with mental health and keeping guns from crazy people, but that's a dangerous Pandora's box, too. You have to be careful with denying rights to people for seeking mental health care, and it's tough to identify the dangerous ones sometimes even if they're under care of a shrink (see: Ft Hood shooter 2.0)


[Edited on April 6, 2014 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2014 2:41:16 PM

The problem with the mechanisms designed to control the tyranny of the majority, is that those same mechanisms are then controlled and influenced by the wealthy elite to serve their interests.

Not to split cunt hairs, but I'd say that blaming the problem solely on stupid people is a little too simple of an explanation. most of those "stupid" people simply just don't have access or time to figure out the details of every issue. And on top of that, it is usually financially beneficial of the ruling establishment to keep those same people in the dark or misinformed on key issues.

But I digest....

4/6/2014 10:41:27 PM

Quote :

"most of those "stupid" people simply just don't have access or time to figure out the details of every issue."

bullshit. they just don't care. they've got internet access and time to watch a bunch of brain-rotting television, but they spend it all on facebook, reality TV, and the men's soap opera known as the NFL.

bread and circuses.

4/6/2014 10:54:26 PM

You consider yourself to be educated. I consider myself to be educated.


Yet we both have different views on this same issue.

4/7/2014 2:41:21 AM

Quote :

"I havent ever met anyone who was against the restrictions placed on automatic weapons, so that inherently means people see elasticity in the amendment as written. So why are people so against expansion of restrictions into other weapons classifications?"

There are plenty of people who are against the current restrictions on automatic weapons. In this post, in this thread, on this board, and in this country.

4/7/2014 9:23:50 AM

Shouldn't we all be? Restricting automatic weapons infringes on our right to bear arms... If you take away automatic weapons, only criminals will have automatic weapons.

4/7/2014 10:19:11 AM

I believe there's a fairly bright line between "arms" and "ordinance." Automatic weapons qualify as the former; WMD, grenades, and SAMs qualify as the latter.

But ignoring Constitutional issues, I think that people who crap their pants over automatic weapons have been watching too many action movies.

4/7/2014 12:51:38 PM

There really just isn't much more to say about the issue. You want to reduce gun violence, you limit access to guns. Simple as that. Study after study have shown that among similarly developed nations, gun violence and gun ownership are linearly correlated. It's the basic truth that makes the solution stupidly obvious and impossibly hard all at the same time. It's no different then things like single payer healthcare or progressive taxation. Irrational ideological opposition to common sense.

4/7/2014 1:27:33 PM

nope, youre wrong (again)

keep trying

4/7/2014 1:36:07 PM

Actually, I couldn't be more right. The good thing is that the only proof I need is time. Despite all the talk of pervasive gun culture in this country, gun ownership has been dropping precipitously for the last 2 decades, and with it so have violent crimes. The reason opinion polls have shown so much support for gun control is simply due to a dwindling number of gun nuts like yourself and theDuke866. Soon you'll all be localized in handful of states, mostly in the south, just like the rest of the backwards thinking populace in this country.

4/7/2014 1:54:46 PM

not quite, good effort though!

needs more anger

4/7/2014 1:56:35 PM

You're the one who's being flippant, little hombre.

4/7/2014 3:11:35 PM

i need to get the flippant out of my system before the government comes for my guns

4/7/2014 3:28:53 PM

Quote :

"Despite all the talk of pervasive gun culture in this country, gun ownership has been dropping precipitously"

source? otherwise, that's completely laughable.

4/7/2014 4:42:44 PM

[Edited on April 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM. Reason : :]

4/7/2014 4:51:57 PM

Quote :

"Despite all the talk of pervasive gun culture in this country, gun ownership has been dropping precipitously for the last 2 decades, and with it so have violent crimes."

Oh look, another stupid fuck that thinks correlation equals causation

Quote :

"It's no different then things like single payer healthcare or progressive taxation."

You're right. all three are bad ideas!

[Edited on April 7, 2014 at 9:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2014 9:25:39 PM

regardless, there is no option for ridding our society of guns to any effective level, so it's a moot point.


as far as gun ownership, percentages of households owning guns has declined somewhat; the number of guns sold in America and in circulation has increased dramatically. Somewhat fewer people, owning ever-increasing shitloads of guns.

...and every time an influential Democrat opens his/her dipshit mouth about the issue, they sell many thousands of guns, and warehouses full of ammunition. My advice is to shut the fuck up about it and find better stuff to worry about, like privacy issues, or foreign policy issues, or feed the GOP some immigration rope with which to hang itself for decades to come.

4/7/2014 10:57:15 PM

Its not just influential democrats.

Dumb shits like Shrike sell plenty of weapons.

4/7/2014 11:40:07 PM