New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

Dox is right - if the purpose of guns was to kill, then shooting ranges would be firing squads. Most people who own and use guns don't kill people - which suggests some other use than killing things.

I assume they're technically correct, what I'm saying is that they're misleading. as they're specifically referencing "gun deaths" and not murder and violent crime generally. Remember, I'm acknowledging that when guns are present they are going to be the preferred tool for violent crime, what I'm disputing is that they cause the violence in and of themselves. There's also a number of socioeconomic factors that those stats are not reflecting, plus they're not comparing California's crime rate during the period that the gun control was phased in against similar states that did not impose gun control. Crime went down nationally at a near record rate, both in state with strict gun control and those without it, so clearly some other factor was at work.

When have I done that? I occasionally use anecdotes, such as my ex who successfully fended off a carjacker with a Glock19, but that's not how I tend to base my arguments. In fact, I don't think I've ever used "I'm a responsible gun owner, therefore guns are safe for everyone" style of argument, that annoys me when other people do it, and I try to be conscientious about not doing things I don't like other doing. The closest thing I can think of is the aforementioned reliance on my credentials, "I'm an expert, you're not", but that's not what you're talking about.

That's awfully cynical of you, not to mention profoundly ill informed of the how the law works regarding CCW holders and the difficulty of holding the police even marginally accountable for their actions. As a CPL holder I'm held to a higher standard than other citizens, because when I made the decision to carry a gun, it's assumed by the courts that I've also chosen to accept a greater responsibility for my actions. Not so much with the police; remember when the LAPD shot those two women delivering the newspaper because they thought they might by Christopher Dorner? Ever see any charges filed on that one?



And yet you sneer at the idea of letting CCW holders from other states carry in California, despite that fact that every state that issues one requires an FBI background check and a set of fingerprints at the minimum before they'll issue them. Cali, like New York, only issues them to people with connections, such as anti-gun politicians and celebrities. I would think you'd be against such a profoundly unfair system that benefits the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the average citizen.
National CCW reciprocity is my current Holy Grail; not only would it allow for people to carry nationally without the risk of running afoul of conflicting local laws, it would finally put a stake through the heart of gun control, as when the apocalypse the antis have been screaming about fails to materialize, the weakness of their arguments will finally be laid bare for all to see.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-control/

The article is fully referenced.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

This happens every time you argue this, you say there is no correlation, then when its proved you marganize that reality and say it does not matter any way. The debate is pointless unless you are prepared to say right now that if the correlation did exist (which it does), then would you change your position?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-control/

The article is fully referenced.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

This happens every time you argue this, you say there is no correlation, then when its proved you marganize that reality and say it does not matter any way. The debate is pointless unless you are prepared to say right now that if the correlation did exist (which it does), then would you change your position?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... n-control/

The article is fully referenced.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

Actually, the argument is not that there is no correlation - but there is nothing that even remotely proves, or even suggests *causation*.




Lets take these points one at a time.



The argument here is that we're an unusually violent country, even though the trend of violence is, and has been, going down for decades. So what? It's obviously true - but you can't make the leap from "we have a higher rate of violence than most of the rest of the world" to "people are killing everyone because they have guns". In fact, the data seems to point to other sources for our unusually high propensity for violence, as other countries with the same or more saturation of firearms don't have a similarly higher rate of violence. The data in the article even appears to contradict itself, as later in the article they attempt to make the argument that the number of households with guns has been decreasing since the '60s (at the same time violence was rising through the roof).



Again, even if you accept the data as true, there's nothing that points to guns as the cause of this violence. Additionally, if you charted the level of economic disparity, you would also see that the South is the poorest region in the US - and economic disparity is a known *major* contributor to crime rates.



This is the only point where I actually attack the data as inaccurate. Determining gun ownership by surveys is somewhat analogous to determining the rate of rape in the Catholic church by polling the members of the church. Gun Owners are, in general, hesitant to advertise the fact that they own guns. Many people who own guns do so for home protection, and don't want to advertise the fact that they actually own guns - especially to a random stranger on a phone call and/or at their door.

Studies using other methods (number of background checks performed year-over-year, number of concealed carry permit holders, etc) have shown an increase in gun ownership since the early 90's. At the very least, it's hotly-contested and can't be accepted as "fact".



Despite the fact that the article links to a page that summarizes a list of studies (but doesn't actually link to the studies, provide any details about how the studies were conducted, or even provide specific figures concluded by those studies), I've actually read all of those studies before - and none of them prove a *statistically relevant* increase in overall homicide. Most of them merely prove a correlation between an increase in guns with an increase in *firearm homicide* - which, well, duh.

Furthermore, those studies that compare state to state show that states with a higher number of guns have a corresponding decrease in all other types of violent crime (rape, mugging, carjacking, burglary, etc).



Again - duh. States that have less guns have less gun violence. But there's still no correlation between guns and the corresponding types of violence *whether committed with a gun or not*. That's when you start getting results that point to it being irrelevant.



Again - this has nothing to do with whether gun control is actually useful. If anything, it just proves what we all already know - gun control is a contentious issue.

Interesting that you skipped the challenge in the sentence. That if it were proven that there were correlation, then would it change your view? Clearly the answer to that is no, because now the goalposts have been shifted from correlation to causation. Then when we discuss social science for 10 posts about how to infer causation from data with no identifiable independent variable then argument shifts again, to the reason people like to possess weapons is based on their being a fundamental check to government power. Having been to North Korea and China I can say for certain that an armed population has certain benefits but I don't see the risks as being outweighed by the potential rewards in well developed states like the US and Australia. I am prepared to grant pro-gun chaps the benefit of the doubt on their claims about what they see as the societal value in having an armed population, I don't really hold to them but thats ok. But lets get past the idea that the gun culture in the US does not kill people. Yes, you can theoretically defend yourself with a weapon and it might be a check on the old King of England but there is a significant moral hazard issue at work here in the inner cities. Rich people get the theoretical benefits of owning weapons and poor people wear the harm.




You are projecting a conclusion onto the blog point that was not claimed by the author or myself.



I like that, 'contributor', call it what it is, economic disparity correlates to crime. Interesting how you accept the relationship here but fundamentally dismiss it in the first instance above. I think we have discovered a cognitive bias. You cannot on the one hand accept the variables of crime and poverty and then on the other dismiss the variables of guns and crime without directly contradicting yourself. Could it be that crime is a complex issue in which poverty, guns and a range of other factors contribute to making the situation worse?... Nah..



There are difficulties in data collection, it does not follow that no data can be collected. The data on the graph was collected in multiple ways and does show a general identifiable trend. Come on, this is social science 101.

Correlation doesn't impress me - you can't just say that the US has high violence and high gun ownership, wave your hands and say some magic words, and the answer is that we need more gun control.

My views are, and have always been based on the data that exists and what I am able to infer from that data. Fundamentally, you can never convince me that it is in my best interest to give up my gun. So, extrapolating from that, you can't convince me that it is in the best interest of society for everyone to give up their guns. Apart from that, I could be convinced of just about anything given clear enough evidence to support the position. But merely pointing out some vague correlation won't do it. I need something that even hints at a causation.



I'm not looking for a smoking gun (pun partially intended), but no one has even been able to prove correlation between gun ownership and violent crime beyond merely looking at specific types of crimes (homicides), or narrowing the field down to crimes committed with guns (and presenting studies that show correlation between gun ownership and gun crime as evidence that gun control is necessary is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty).



This isn't a shifting argument, where one argument is lost and so the topic shifts - these are all separate arguments. There is the constitutional argument regarding the validity and necessity of the second amendment in a modern world - which, quite frankly, I don't care about beyond a merely theoretical level. Until it is repealed by an act of Congress, it is law - and the necessity or validity of the law is completely irrelevant. Thus, your argument that guns are detrimental to American society is similarly theoretical, and irrelevant. If you don't like our laws - you're more than welcome to stay in Australia.

The much more practical question is how to reduce the crime rate in the US - and what role (if any) gun control plays in that solution.



True, but it's the only conclusion that can be gathered that has anything to do with the article's topic, which specifically concerns guns. What other conclusion can be drawn?



I accept the correlation as causation because it can be applied universally. Increased poverty in an area *always* correlates with an increase in crime, whereas an increase in gun ownership does not *always* result in increased crime. It's really that simple.



Correction, it was collected by multiple people in the same way (surveys). What I said was not that the data was invalid, what I said was there are other studies on the subject that collect data in different ways that show different trends. And general consensus amongst all of the different studies (including the ones that were mentioned in the same article) show gun ownership rising, not falling.

If you want to contest that, that's fine - but don't dismiss the overwhelming consensus by attributing the outlier as "fact", as that article does.

Correlations of -0.40 and above are highly suggestive. There is a bit more at work to all the research than a hand wave, but not much more in your dismissal of it.



Your first sentence is irreconcilable with the section I have bolded in your prose. My original point was that the relationship to increased gun deaths and the contemporary legal framework within the United States has next to no relationship to the reason why people chose to have guns or support the Second Amendment. Rather, people hold onto that value in a way that exists in spite of the evidence. That is fine, as it suggests that there is more going on but continuously harping on about the relationship as if it would change your mind if true is just a waste of time and in invitation for parties to talk past one another. You don't seem to actually be disputing my main point, rather you are just charging on within the framework of the debate, when it is the framework that I am primarily taking issue with. Gun kill people and societies with guns and poverty, like the United States create situations where more people will be killed and injured. Those living in the suburbs and country towns, who are more likely to support the Second Amendment don't really care what happens where the negative externalities are actually felt. Its a simple issue of moral hazard. This is why I am impatient with these debates, since no evidence will shift your position, the reality is that we just proceed from different world views that in this case are irreconcilable.



I agree that showing a link between access to weapons and killing people with the same is indicative of the access and not the rate of use. But it boggles the minds of outsiders that pro-gun chaps insist on making comparisons between knives and guns as if there is no efficiency dividend from the weapon itself. However, I must take issue with you here, the study I showed you finds that there is a relationship to increased homicide generally as well as increase firearm homicide. So declaring that the studies only find x when they actually find more than that is also quite dishonest.

"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." (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... and-death/)



That last sentence is actually quite insulting. I spent the last year living in NY and will be moving to DC in February. As a result I have a great interest in the debates within the United States. Considering how often people in the NRA like to portray my home country as a crime riddled mess I consider the comparison and the rules to be learned fair game (http://monash.edu/news/show/faking-wave ... rime-stats).

but if you talk about such in amuurica, just as sure as KA-follows BOOM there will be righties shouting CLASS WARFARE back at you. America is hopelessly deaf to world opinion and always has to discover the correct way only after doing all the wrong things first.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry ... ation.html


Not a lot of celebrities in Humboldt County, but more than a few Concealed Carry holders.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/humbol ... id=2128075

Swords are also tools for killing people, but they're used in that capacity even less of a percentage of time than guns are.

What am I supposed to be getting from this?



Show me the numbers for LA or SF.