***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Guest]

Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40

.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88

.

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

What specifically are they doing here?

What do you mean?

"after controlling for poverty and urbanization"What does that mean?

Holding variables constant.They're comparing neighborhoods that have similar rates of poverty and are similar in their rural/urban makeup but vary on gun-ownership rates to see what the differences are.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

 

[cobalt_27]

Anyway...

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40

.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88

.

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

What specifically are they doing here?

What do you mean?

"after controlling for poverty and urbanization"What does that mean?

Holding variables constant.They're comparing neighborhoods that have similar rates of poverty and are similar in their rural/urban makeup but vary on gun-ownership rates to see what the differences are.

It's the equivalent to accounting for park dimensions when analyzing home run rates (there are a lot of obvious sports examples, this is the first one I could think of). The assumption is that ballparks like the Coors Field, Fenway, etc. are intrinsically going to produce more HRs than, say, Petco or Dodgers' Stadiums. All good data analytic techniques control for variables like these.

 

[cobalt_27]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

You're confusing propaganda with science, bud. JustFacts makes up their own standard of credibility, which you are more than free to choose to follow. The rest of us will take our cues from the scientific community who conduct actual research, subject their findings to the scrutiny of the peer review process, and make interpretations accordingly.

 

[Cookiemonster]

3. There is no private sales loophole. Regarding point #3, I challenge you to find a single country on Earth besides the United States where private sales of firearms go unrecorded.

I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of people arguing against this.

Myth: Gun bans elsewhere workFact: Though illegal, side-street gun makers thrive in the Philippines, primarily hand crafting exact replicas of submachine guns, which are often the simplest type of gun to manufacture. Estimates are that almost half of all guns in the Philippines are illegal.39Fact: Chinese police destroyed 113 illegal gun factories and shops in a three-month crackdown in 2006. Police seized 2,445 tons of explosives, 4.81 million detonators and 117,000 guns.40

I'd venture to guess that illegal gun sales are not recorded, yet seem to be prevalent in nearly every country in the world and more so when laws and restrictions are tight.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

You're confusing propaganda with science, bud. JustFacts makes up their own standard of credibility, which you are more than free to choose to follow. The rest of us will take our cues from the scientific community who conduct actual research, subject their findings to the scrutiny of the peer review process, and make interpretations accordingly.

You are confusing unintentional firearm fatalities and suicides with intentional homicides. The discussion has been finding a correlation between intentional homicide rates and guns, your literature draws no conclusions in this area, filters the data to shape it's results (i.e. cooking the books) and ignores other relevant factors that contribute to a higher rate of homicides. "Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries", 2003.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D.

The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households.

These studies do not filter out households where a member was previously arrested (doubles the homicide chance), households where a member used illicit drugs (5x the homicide chance), nor households where a member was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (5x the homicide chance).

Weed out the suicides, unintentional homicides, the above household filters, and the "high income" and "developed" country filters and then you will be on your way to an unbiased analysis. I know you won't though and claim you can't because you don't have access to their data.

You cannot get any more clear and unbiased than the country by country example I gave you which you ignored.

Switzerland has approximately 1 gun for every two people in the country ranked 4th per capita, if intentional homicides correlate with guns then why is their rate only 0.7? There must be some secret ingredient to your formula that you are using to create this correlation between guns and intentional homicide rates because clearly these two variables are not enough to establish a trend.

 

[cobalt_27]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

You're confusing propaganda with science, bud. JustFacts makes up their own standard of credibility, which you are more than free to choose to follow. The rest of us will take our cues from the scientific community who conduct actual research, subject their findings to the scrutiny of the peer review process, and make interpretations accordingly.

You are confusing unintentional firearm fatalities and suicides with intentional homicides."Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries", 2003.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D.

Wow, you are such a mess.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

You're confusing propaganda with science, bud. JustFacts makes up their own standard of credibility, which you are more than free to choose to follow. The rest of us will take our cues from the scientific community who conduct actual research, subject their findings to the scrutiny of the peer review process, and make interpretations accordingly.

You are confusing unintentional firearm fatalities and suicides with intentional homicides."Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries", 2003.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D.

Wow, you are such a mess.

and you are being condescending and ignoring what the topic has always been, how many times do I have to repeat the topic to you, "more guns = more murders", that means intentional homicides, not accidents nor suicides.

 

[cobalt_27]

@cobalt_27

re: gun ownership:fatality relationship

Show me this relationship after adjusting for these factors:

Households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely to have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

This statistic you guys keep bragging about fails these "Standards of Credibility" as described in the above link:

* Facts: Every effort is made to keep the facts as plain as possible and to use language that is clear and precise.

* Excluded Facts: The only "facts" excluded are those that are rendered pointless by other facts and those that do not meet the Standards of Credibility listed here.

* Accuracy: Just Facts does not use sources uncritically, and before citing them, we often perform investigative and feasibility studies to test their veracity. Just Facts is also committed to documenting the facts we publish far more thoroughly than standard academic practice requires. Hence, all of our research since 2001 contains footnotes with direct quotes and/or raw data from the cited sources. This allows readers to quickly verify that we accurately represent these citations. Our goal for every fact is 100% transparency.

* Estimates and Minor Discrepancies: These are handled by giving preferentiality to figures that are contrary to our viewpoints and by using the most cautious plausible interpretations of such data.

* Conclusions and Quotes: Every effort is made to keep quotes within context. Conclusions and quotes made by people with vested interests are excluded except to point out inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

* Incomplete Data: "Facts" that do not account for vital contextual information are not included in our research. Example: A study determines that under a certain proposal, "taxes for the average family will increase by $700 over the next four years." This would be excluded if the study did not account for inflation, which may add $300 to the average tax bill regardless of whether or not the proposal is adopted.

* Balance: Our goal is comprehensive accuracy, not balance. Press outlets often provide quotes from people on opposing sides of an issue. This, in our opinion, is a charade. First, there is nothing to prevent a news source from quoting the most compelling argument from one side and the weakest from the other. Second, such soundbites are often loaded with rhetoric and misinformation. Our purpose is to publish verifiable facts regardless of the views they support, not to circulate half-truths and propaganda.

:tapsfoot:

You're confusing propaganda with science, bud. JustFacts makes up their own standard of credibility, which you are more than free to choose to follow. The rest of us will take our cues from the scientific community who conduct actual research, subject their findings to the scrutiny of the peer review process, and make interpretations accordingly.

You are confusing unintentional firearm fatalities and suicides with intentional homicides."Homicide, suicide, and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries", 2003.

Richardson EG, Hemenway D.

Wow, you are such a mess.

and you are being condescending and ignoring what the topic has always been, how many times do I have to repeat the topic to you, "more guns = more murders", that means intentional homicides, not accidents nor suicides.

And I linked to the findings of 5 independent studies that examined the relationship between the availability of guns and homicides. There certainly are other data regarding accidents and suicides. But, that was not what I included in the excerpts. And then you post an article that I didn't link. Sorry you feel this is so condescending, but you are clearly all over the place and so emotionally tied to your right wing hysteria that you are beyond having a linear, logical conversation. You've been slam dunked here repeatedly, and you keep clumsily dodging the issue.You're not worth the time.

 

[timschochet]

I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.

Sorry, I've been busy watching college football, and, during commercials, the fiscal cliff debacle. I believe that private sales should be allowed to continue, as in if you want to sell your firearm to your brother-in-law, go ahead. BUT every time a sale or transfer is completed, you need to contact a national database and inform them, and a background check must be performed on the buyer/transferee. And yes, I want all guns registered. So far as I know, this is done on every country on Earth that allows private gun ownership other than this one. But of course, I'm only for this because it makes me feel good; there is no logic in my proposal. I surrender all logic to the gun nuts.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

 

[tom22406]

I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.

Sorry, I've been busy watching college football, and, during commercials, the fiscal cliff debacle. I believe that private sales should be allowed to continue, as in if you want to sell your firearm to your brother-in-law, go ahead. BUT every time a sale or transfer is completed, you need to contact a national database and inform them, and a background check must be performed on the buyer/transferee. And yes, I want all guns registered. So far as I know, this is done on every country on Earth that allows private gun ownership other than this one. But of course, I'm only for this because it makes me feel good; there is no logic in my proposal. I surrender all logic to the gun nuts.

I will go along with making it only legal for FFL holders to conduct sales at a gun show and each sale passing a background check.The registration part is where things get really messy.Do you propose that all sales going forward be required to be registered or all guns owned and already bought?I never said it made you feel good or logic wasn't involved but that is what this whole thread has turned into.A huge pissing match.

 

[Sammy3469]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

You aren't even trying now.

Like I said awhile ago, your understanding of stats is beyond comical.

 

[gsmayes]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to fire my guns in the air like the founding fathers and god intended.AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[cobalt_27]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

You aren't even trying now.

Like I said awhile ago, your understanding of stats is beyond comical.

Can't even interpret an abstract, let alone 5 of them. Not shocking from a guy who claims expertise from a vague allusion to working with databases, financial data, and politics.So, the crazy gun people on this board have been outed as plagiarists and incapable of understanding basic statistics.

 

[Otis]

Anyone fire some shots off last night at midnight??

You guys are so juvenile and obnoxious.

 

[timschochet]

I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.

Sorry, I've been busy watching college football, and, during commercials, the fiscal cliff debacle. I believe that private sales should be allowed to continue, as in if you want to sell your firearm to your brother-in-law, go ahead. BUT every time a sale or transfer is completed, you need to contact a national database and inform them, and a background check must be performed on the buyer/transferee. And yes, I want all guns registered. So far as I know, this is done on every country on Earth that allows private gun ownership other than this one. But of course, I'm only for this because it makes me feel good; there is no logic in my proposal. I surrender all logic to the gun nuts.

I will go along with making it only legal for FFL holders to conduct sales at a gun show and each sale passing a background check.The registration part is where things get really messy.Do you propose that all sales going forward be required to be registered or all guns owned and already bought?I never said it made you feel good or logic wasn't involved but that is what this whole thread has turned into.A huge pissing match.

I realize it wasn't you that made those comments about "feel good" and "logic" but I felt compelled to mention it anyhow.To answer your question: yes I think the only way to have a national database that would work is to for the government to have a record of EVERY firearm, just like every other country in this world does. And I really don't think it would be messy at all. If you own a gun already, you will be required to notify the database of what you own. The only people that would object to this are those who are fearful that the federal government will use this information to seize all guns. And that is a small, paranoid section of the population (even though they appear to be well represented in this thread.)

 

[Spanky267]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

You aren't even trying now.

Like I said awhile ago, your understanding of stats is beyond comical.

Can't even interpret an abstract, let alone 5 of them. Not shocking from a guy who claims expertise from a vague allusion to working with databases, financial data, and politics.So, the crazy gun people on this board have been outed as plagiarists and incapable of understanding basic statistics.

Keep patting yourself on the back.You haven't defined a correlation, you have pointed to a study, ok 5 studies (all with HEMENWAY as a contributor, what a coincidence!) and you have no idea what the data looks like, what parameters were used to filter the data, and you cannot make any valid points to contradict a simple state by state or country by country comparison of guns vs intentional homicide rate. Here's a hint, if there was a correlation we would see it by now.

I want specifics, I want to know how they chose each city, did they filter based on crime level, population density or some other biased filter? Just saying look they compared "like" cities/urban areas means jack squat when you have no clue how they chose those cities. We already know they filtered countries by "high-income" so they can discard countries like Russia or Brazil that would not give them the results they are looking for even though those two countries are in the top 10 of most populous countries in the world.

 

[timschochet]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

They must have secretly confiscated half the guns in the US and there must not have been any more gun sales over that period of time.

 

[cobalt_27]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

You aren't even trying now.

Like I said awhile ago, your understanding of stats is beyond comical.

Can't even interpret an abstract, let alone 5 of them. Not shocking from a guy who claims expertise from a vague allusion to working with databases, financial data, and politics.So, the crazy gun people on this board have been outed as plagiarists and incapable of understanding basic statistics.

Keep patting yourself on the back.You haven't defined a correlation, you have pointed to a study, ok 5 studies (all with HEMENWAY as a contributor, what a coincidence!) and you have no idea what the data looks like, what parameters were used to filter the data, and you cannot make any valid points to contradict a simple state by state or country by country comparison of guns vs intentional homicide rate. Here's a hint, if there was a correlation we would see it by now.

I want specifics, I want to know how they chose each city, did they filter based on crime level, population density or some other biased filter? Just saying look they compared "like" cities/urban areas means jack squat when you have no clue how they chose those cities. We already know they filtered countries by "high-income" so they can discard countries like Russia or Brazil that would not give them the results they are looking for even though those two countries are in the top 10 of most populous countries in the world.

For someone who gets his statistical acumen from a Cracker Jack box, I doubt any of this information would be particularly meaningful to you.Anyway, just to correct you, I read three of the 5 articles, all of which dealt with different topics. Hemenway was not a contributor on the last study I linked. There are volumes of these studies out there...he happens to be one of the pre-eminent international researchers on crime/violence. So, I linked him. Rather than asking me to do all the heavy lifting for you, why don't you grab a few of these studies, sit down, read their contents, and then come back to challenge the findings.

Until then, in somewhat of an ironic twist, you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anyone fire some shots off last night at midnight??

You guys are so juvenile and obnoxious.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did YOU of all people actually post that? Did you just accuse someone else of being juvenile and obnoxious? Simply amazing.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Firearm ownership vs. Murders and Non-Negligent Manslaughters per 100k by State

Yeah real strong corollary there.

Disproved on a country by country basis

Disproved on a state by state basis

You aren't even trying now.

Like I said awhile ago, your understanding of stats is beyond comical.

Can't even interpret an abstract, let alone 5 of them. Not shocking from a guy who claims expertise from a vague allusion to working with databases, financial data, and politics.So, the crazy gun people on this board have been outed as plagiarists and incapable of understanding basic statistics.

Keep patting yourself on the back.You haven't defined a correlation, you have pointed to a study, ok 5 studies (all with HEMENWAY as a contributor, what a coincidence!) and you have no idea what the data looks like, what parameters were used to filter the data, and you cannot make any valid points to contradict a simple state by state or country by country comparison of guns vs intentional homicide rate. Here's a hint, if there was a correlation we would see it by now.

I want specifics, I want to know how they chose each city, did they filter based on crime level, population density or some other biased filter? Just saying look they compared "like" cities/urban areas means jack squat when you have no clue how they chose those cities. We already know they filtered countries by "high-income" so they can discard countries like Russia or Brazil that would not give them the results they are looking for even though those two countries are in the top 10 of most populous countries in the world.

For someone who gets his statistical acumen from a Cracker Jack box, I doubt any of this information would be particularly meaningful to you.Anyway, just to correct you, I read three of the 5 articles, all of which dealt with different topics. Hemenway was not a contributor on the last study I linked. There are volumes of these studies out there...he happens to be one of the pre-eminent international researchers on crime/violence. So, I linked him. Rather than asking me to do all the heavy lifting for you, why don't you grab a few of these studies, sit down, read their contents, and then come back to challenge the findings.

Until then, in somewhat of an ironic twist, you're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

So you are not answering my direct questions, shocking.Nor are you contradicting the state by state or country by country comparisons that directly contradict your theory that more guns = more intentional homicides, no surprise there either.

Also you have no comment on Spanky267's post, how could intentional homicides go down so much without a drastic change in the availability of firearms? Geez there must be some other variable you have neglected to tell us that balances your correlation.

 

[Spanky267]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

 

[Otis]

Anyone fire some shots off last night at midnight??

You guys are so juvenile and obnoxious.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did YOU of all people actually post that? Did you just accuse someone else of being juvenile and obnoxious? Simply amazing.

✓ Don't bother just getting in the boat, get in the frying pan, cook, then jump onto a bun.

 

[tom22406]

I was more wondering if his only intent was to make all states require background checks at these shows.Right now 33 states allow private sales at these shows(with no background check) and was wondering if that is all he is after or more along the lines of all private sales being banned totally and registration of all guns.

Sorry, I've been busy watching college football, and, during commercials, the fiscal cliff debacle. I believe that private sales should be allowed to continue, as in if you want to sell your firearm to your brother-in-law, go ahead. BUT every time a sale or transfer is completed, you need to contact a national database and inform them, and a background check must be performed on the buyer/transferee. And yes, I want all guns registered. So far as I know, this is done on every country on Earth that allows private gun ownership other than this one. But of course, I'm only for this because it makes me feel good; there is no logic in my proposal. I surrender all logic to the gun nuts.

I will go along with making it only legal for FFL holders to conduct sales at a gun show and each sale passing a background check.The registration part is where things get really messy.Do you propose that all sales going forward be required to be registered or all guns owned and already bought?I never said it made you feel good or logic wasn't involved but that is what this whole thread has turned into.A huge pissing match.

I realize it wasn't you that made those comments about "feel good" and "logic" but I felt compelled to mention it anyhow.To answer your question: yes I think the only way to have a national database that would work is to for the government to have a record of EVERY firearm, just like every other country in this world does. And I really don't think it would be messy at all. If you own a gun already, you will be required to notify the database of what you own. The only people that would object to this are those who are fearful that the federal government will use this information to seize all guns. And that is a small, paranoid section of the population (even though they appear to be well represented in this thread.)

Fair enough and thanks for clarifying your stance.I honestly wasn't sure what you were getting at but to be fair the paranoia also has it's fair share from the other side as well.I have no clue what the best solution is and from the sounds of things neither does anyone else at this time.Each side has it's own set of experts and nobody is budging from them.I think a great start would be to clean up our judicial and mental health systems.Tighten up some of the gun laws already in place and implement safety courses(which the NRA are very good at btw)to educate gun owners(and anybody else that wants to learn)and continue down the path we have been heading which has been reduced crime over the last 30 years.

 

[timschochet]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

Not to me. I don't really care one way or the other about that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Anyone fire some shots off last night at midnight??

You guys are so juvenile and obnoxious.

Do my eyes deceive me? Did YOU of all people actually post that? Did you just accuse someone else of being juvenile and obnoxious? Simply amazing.

✓ Don't bother just getting in the boat, get in the frying pan, cook, then jump onto a bun.

Thanks for the confirmation I wasn't seeing things.

 

[Guest]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

Read Steven Levitt.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

Read Steven Levitt.

"....if you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is."

 

[Rovers]

The stupid idiot woman, who KNEW her son was mantally deranged did NOT have her beloved gun collection under lock and key.

I submit that the general populace is full of idiots. These idiots own guns.

Shoot all the idiots.

The population of TX will be cut in half.

 

[Spanky267]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

Read Steven Levitt.

Anything in particular by Steven Levitt? Or do I need to read his full body of work?

 

[Spanky267]

The stupid idiot woman, who KNEW her son was mantally deranged did NOT have her beloved gun collection under lock and key. I submit that the general populace is full of idiots. These idiots own guns. Shoot all the idiots. The population of TX will be cut in half.

We also allow idiots to vote, drive and have babies. Will be shooting them too?

 

[Rovers]

The stupid idiot woman, who KNEW her son was mantally deranged did NOT have her beloved gun collection under lock and key. I submit that the general populace is full of idiots. These idiots own guns. Shoot all the idiots. The population of TX will be cut in half.

We also allow idiots to vote, drive and have babies. Will be shooting them too?

I'm game. Uh-oh... bad choice of words.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The fact that violent crime has declined dramatically while the number of guns in the country has risen has little to do with the subject matter? I thought the meme in here was more guns = more crime?

Read Steven Levitt.

Anything in particular by Steven Levitt? Or do I need to read his full body of work?

I'll save you the trouble:Contributors to a large decrease in homicides:

Increase in Number of Police

The Rising Prison Population

The Receding Crack Epidemic

The Legalization of Abortion

Hence what was the likely cause of at least 50% of the homicides prior to the decrease?

Not enough Police

Not enough criminals put in jail

Crack epidemic

Unwanted babies turning into criminals

Wait I thought it was guns that were responsible for all of these homicides, don't more guns = more homicides?

 

[Cookiemonster]

What do you guys make of the FBI crime statistics that show that overall violent crime has decreased by 50% from 1992 to 2011 and the murder rate has declined 54% over the same time span.

I think it's great. I don't think it has much to do with this subject matter, though.

The subject matter is gun control. The biggest push is for "assault weapons" ban and high-cap magazine ban and gun registration/private sales.1st of all, the violent crime and murder rate has dramatically decreased over the last 20 years despite the emergence of "assault weapon" popularity. Also from the FBI statistics (which I value as the least slanted stats we'll find) is that 67.8% of murders in the US in 2011 were committed by a firearm (8583/12664 total). Rifles were responsible for 3.76% of firearm murders (323/8583) and a whopping 2.55% of all murders. AR variant "assault rifles" are only a fraction of that, and what do the politicians want to go after 1st? The ones they can make people scared of the easiest.2nd has been the beat to death high-cap mags.Unfortunately, I don't know if there is reliable data for illegally possessed firearms used in felonies.

 

[Spanky267]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/

This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'll save you the trouble:

Contributors to a large decrease in homicides:

Increase in Number of Police

The Rising Prison Population

The Receding Crack Epidemic

The Legalization of Abortion

Hence what was the likely cause of at least 50% of the homicides prior to the decrease?

Not enough Police - Our local police force cut down so low that I can go a couple weeks, easily, without seeing a beat cop.

Not enough criminals put in jail - Our jail is to capacity and most criminals are book-and-release. AB-109 is seriously ####ed up legislation.

Crack epidemic - Crank here, but essentially the same drug & problems.

Unwanted babies turning into criminals

Wait I thought it was guns that were responsible for all of these homicides, don't more guns = more homicides?

All those above equal a couple more guns in my house. Made sure my 14 year old girl knows how to stop a rapist with a 12 gauge.

 

[Henry Ford]

I thought we solved this when I agreed the gun folks that we should enact China's gun laws. Isn't tht the end of it?

 

[boots11234]

I'll save you the trouble:

Contributors to a large decrease in homicides:

Increase in Number of Police

The Rising Prison Population

The Receding Crack Epidemic

The Legalization of Abortion

Hence what was the likely cause of at least 50% of the homicides prior to the decrease?

Not enough Police - Our local police force cut down so low that I can go a couple weeks, easily, without seeing a beat cop.

Not enough criminals put in jail - Our jail is to capacity and most criminals are book-and-release. AB-109 is seriously ####ed up legislation.

Crack epidemic - Crank here, but essentially the same drug & problems.

Unwanted babies turning into criminals

Wait I thought it was guns that were responsible for all of these homicides, don't more guns = more homicides?

All those above equal a couple more guns in my house. Made sure my 14 year old girl knows how to stop a rapist with a 12 gauge.

Sweet! Got my 9 year old a .22 plinkster for christmas. Going to teach her how to shoot and respect firearms. Going to discuss firearms with my 7 year old son too.

 

[Cookiemonster]

All those above equal a couple more guns in my house. Made sure my 14 year old girl knows how to stop a rapist with a 12 gauge.

Sweet! Got my 9 year old a .22 plinkster for christmas. Going to teach her how to shoot and respect firearms. Going to discuss firearms with my 7 year old son too.

Best way to keep the guns safely around kids.1. Keep guns locked up when not on your hip.2. Teach kids the 4 rules: 1) Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2) Do not point a firearm at anything you do not want to destroy. 3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire. 4) Be aware of your target, what is beyond your target and your surroundings. 3a if applicable) Keep the weapon on safe until you are ready to fire. Weapon on safe when you finish firing.They have to be able to recite the rules to me before they go to the range and after we get back.3. Letting them handle the guns (unloaded and under extremely close supervision) helps curb some of the curiosity, and letting them try them out live once they have proven safe handling to build confidence and respect.6 year old has his own BB gun and has gotten to try the .22 revolver and 10/22 rifle. 14 year old is little (5'0" and 105#) and didn't care much for the recoil of the shotgun until we told her to look at the target and think of how her attacker would feel. Big smile on her face after that.

 

[boots11234]

All those above equal a couple more guns in my house. Made sure my 14 year old girl knows how to stop a rapist with a 12 gauge.

Sweet! Got my 9 year old a .22 plinkster for christmas. Going to teach her how to shoot and respect firearms. Going to discuss firearms with my 7 year old son too.

Best way to keep the guns safely around kids.1. Keep guns locked up when not on your hip.2. Teach kids the 4 rules: 1) Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. 2) Do not point a firearm at anything you do not want to destroy. 3) Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you intend to fire. 4) Be aware of your target, what is beyond your target and your surroundings. 3a if applicable) Keep the weapon on safe until you are ready to fire. Weapon on safe when you finish firing.They have to be able to recite the rules to me before they go to the range and after we get back.3. Letting them handle the guns (unloaded and under extremely close supervision) helps curb some of the curiosity, and letting them try them out live once they have proven safe handling to build confidence and respect.6 year old has his own BB gun and has gotten to try the .22 revolver and 10/22 rifle. 14 year old is little (5'0" and 105#) and didn't care much for the recoil of the shotgun until we told her to look at the target and think of how her attacker would feel. Big smile on her face after that.

Agree with all the above sept the 4 rules are really for everyone, as I'm sure you know. Just waiting now for Otis to call me ####### crazy and or bat ### crazy.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I thought we solved this when I agreed the gun folks that we should enact China's gun laws. Isn't tht the end of it?

put the crack pipe down you are not making any sense

 

[Sammy3469]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

Whole lotta research in that article.

 

[Sammy3469]

14 year old is little (5'0" and 105#) and didn't care much for the recoil of the shotgun until we told her to look at the target and think of how her attacker would feel. Big smile on her face after that.

Way to instill the fear at an early age. Well Done. Really...Well done.

 

[Guest]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

 

[Henry Ford]

I thought we solved this when I agreed the gun folks that we should enact China's gun laws. Isn't tht the end of it?

put the crack pipe down you are not making any sense

Crack pipe?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

Or perhaps you should layout all the variables of a correlation you are claiming exists since these simple "scatterplots" clearly show there are no relationships absent other "controls".

 

[Guest]

Is this the Steven Levitt of which Matthias speaks?http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/07/07/no-more-dc-gun-ban-no-big-deal/This article seems to support that position that it is more important to severely punish perpetrators of gun crimes in an effort to discourage more crimes. He seems to suggest that the DC and Chicago gun bans did nothing to curb gun crime.

That's the guy.If gun bans don't work, they don't work. But the discussion should revolve around evidence and estimates done by people who know what they're doing, not some guy looking at a scatterplot on the Internet and thinking he just "proved" something.

Or perhaps you should layout all the variables of a correlation you are claiming exists since these simple "scatterplots" clearly show there are no relationships absent other "controls".

Maybe you should personally document every single gun owner in every state and every single murder in every state if you want to use a scatter plot using that data.Or, you know, grow up and be an adult.Your choice.