US Politics: Deep State Solution

[Altherion]

16 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe you should parse that article a little more carefully. The law dealt with assault weapons only, not the only type of fire arm out there.The author of the study gave the reasons why the law didn't have a large impact.

He concludes with:

 

I do not think this study means, what you think it means.

Actually, from what is written there it is possible to argue both sides (which is what the article said was done by the politicians). The author of the study hedges pretty severely:

Quote

Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.

...

The grandfathering provisions in the law meant that the effects of the law would occur only very gradually over time. It seems that those effects were still unfolding when the ban was lifted, and indeed they may not have been fully realized for several more years into the future even if the ban had been extended in 2004.

The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings.

...

So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society.

So basically, there was no evidence that that the ban accomplished anything, but had it been allowed to go on longer, it might have produced a reduction so small that it is difficult to say that it is there.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

Actually, from what is written there it is possible to argue both sides (which is what the article said was done by the politicians). The author of the study hedges pretty severely:

So basically, there was no evidence that that the ban accomplished anything, but had it been allowed to go on longer, it might have produced a reduction so small that it is difficult to say that it is there.

Actually, well, no shit. The point I made was that the article didn't prove at all the poster's assertion that gun laws are completely ineffective. There were about three reasons why this particular piece of legislation didn't do much. 1) The law only covered one class of fire arms. 2) Many of the banned fire arms were grandfathered in. 3) People substituted other weapons.

Quote

but had it been allowed to go on longer, it might have produced a reduction so small that it is difficult to say that it is there.

Well I think this is your own take, rather than what the author of the study was trying to say. Again:

Quote

Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”

I don't think he is saying exactly that it would be "difficult to say it was there" as you say.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

And again, what effect on gun violence did the NFA and GCA (whom have a far broader focus) and state level gun control measures do? I know pro-gun control arguments are hard to come by in any form that isn't "B-B-BUT AUSTRALIA!" but at least present something.

So your assertion here is: There isn't one iota of evidence anywhere that gun controls might work?

That's what you are telling everyone here? Is that correct?

[Samantha Stark]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

So your assertion here is: There isn't one iota of evidence anywhere that gun controls might work?

That's what you are telling everyone here? Is that correct?

Are you going to present statistics that support your assertion that it does work, or deflect more?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

Are you going to present statistics that support your assertion that it does work, or deflect more?

First I just want to get you one the record as saying there is no evidence that gun controls work.

So, could you like answer the question?

[Martell Spy]

Graham: A free press and judiciary 'worth fighting and dying for'

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/lindsey-graham-free-press-judiciary-235193

Defense Secretary Mattis breaks with Trump on declaring that media are 'enemy of the American people'

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-mattis-breaks-with-trump-on-declaring-1487519303-htmlstory.html

[Samantha Stark]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

First I just want to get you one the record as saying there is no evidence that gun controls work.

So, could you like answer the question?

I realize that you and others are used to these threads being left wing safe spaces, and that I am a particularly bruising debater, but I am not on trial here and there is no need for me to 'go on record' about anything.

But no. There is little to no evidence that gun control reduces gun related crime, or even violent crime in general.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

I realize that you and others are used to these threads being left wing safe spaces, and that I am a particularly bruising debater, but I am not on trial here and there is no need for me to 'go on record' about anything.

But no. There is little to no evidence that gun control reduces gun related crime, or even violent crime in general.

Yeah, I don't think I really need a safe space.

Anyway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/07/gun-control-what-works-what-doesnt-and-what-remains-open-for-debate/

Now, I know there are lot of studies out there. And they all come to varying conclusions. But my real point here is that it's absurd to say there is no evidence that gun control doesn't work.

[Ser Reptitious]

6 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

I am a particularly bruising debater

Thanks, you just made my day! 

Looks like we have our very own mini-Trump here, right down to ending posts with the one word sentence "sad" and having a bit of an ego. Anyway, carry on... *munches popcorn*

[Altherion]

36 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well I think this is your own take, rather than what the author of the study was trying to say. Again:

I don't think he is saying exactly that it would be "difficult to say it was there" as you say.

Keep reading. Later in the article, there are more comments from the researcher which quantify "small" in this context (less than 5%) and also say that effects of this magnitude would be difficult to measure.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

Keep reading. Later in the article, there are more comments from the researcher which quantify "small" in this context (less than 5%) and also say that effects of this magnitude would be difficult to measure.

Okay, fair enough. Here is the exact quote you're talking about, I think:

Quote

So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.

 

[Samantha Stark]

15 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, I don't think I really need a safe space.

Anyway:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/07/gun-control-what-works-what-doesnt-and-what-remains-open-for-debate/

Now, I know there are lot of studies out there. And they all come to varying conclusions. But my real point here is that it's absurd to say there is no evidence that gun control doesn't work.

By that logic isn't it fair to say there is no evidence to say gun control laws do work?

[Samantha Stark]

14 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Thanks, you just made my day! 

Looks like we have our very own mini-Trump here, right down to ending posts with the one word sentence "sad" and having a bit of an ego. Anyway, carry on... *munches popcorn*

I am glad to have made your day rather or not you meant this sarcastically. I also appreciate the comparison to the God Emperor. Love!

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

By that logic isn't it fair to say there is no evidence to say gun control laws do work?

No not really. The fact of the matter is there is often going to be a bit of uncertainty in social science research. That's kind of the nature things when you are having to deal with mainly observational data. That doesn't mean though it shouldn't have any bearing on policy discussions though. Otherwise you're just blindly guessing. So yeah it is some evidence. 

Typically, the best approach is to read a variety of studies. The study also suggested there is need for more research on this topic, I believe. 

By the way, hasn't the NRA tried to block funding for this kind of research?

[felice]

18 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

But no. There is little to no evidence that gun control reduces gun related crime

And there's little to no evidence that glasses of water put out house fires. The solution is using fire hoses, not writing off water as ineffective.

18 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said:

or even violent crime in general.

Gun control doesn't reduce non-gun-related crime? How is that possible?!?

[Samantha Stark]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

No not really. The fact of the matter is there is often going to be a bit of uncertainty in social science research. That's kind of the nature things when you are having to deal with mainly observational data. That doesn't mean though it shouldn't have any bearing on policy discussions though. Otherwise you're just blindly guessing.

Typically, the best approach is to read a variety of studies. The study also suggested there is need for more research on this topic, I believe. 

By the way, hasn't the NRA tried to block funding for this kind of research?

As much as I wish I were, I am not a gun-toting, NRA card holding American. I am not sure of what they do and do not do on capital hill.

[TrueMetis]

54 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So your assertion here is: There isn't one iota of evidence anywhere that gun controls might work?

That's what you are telling everyone here? Is that correct?

Well you know, except a very good piece of evidence that doesn't count for reasons.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

As much as I wish I were, I am not a gun-toting, NRA card holding American. I am not sure of what they do and do not do on capital hill.

Well it seems they did:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

Blocking research into an important matter. Now that seems like something "true conservatives" would do.

[Samantha Stark]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Well it seems they did:

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

Blocking research into an important matter. Now that seems like something "true conservatives" would do.

It looks like they blocked federal funding for search research. There is nothing stopping independent groups from doing so. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Samantha Stark said:

It looks like they blocked federal funding for search research. There is nothing stopping independent groups from doing so. 

 

Quote

Because of the NRA's successful campaign to eliminate the scientific research into the public health effect of firearms, very few researchers specialize in the field anymore, University of California, Davis, professor Garen Wintemute told Reuters. He said there isn't enough money to sustain research.