Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Rippounet said: There is no hypocrisy. No one expects regulations, or even a total ban, to be magical. Murders would still occur. Murders by firearms even. That's a given. But we're talking about bringing the rate of death by firearms in the US closer to that of other developed countries (i.e. 25 times lower on average for homicides). We're not talking about saving everyone, but about saving the people who die because there are so many guns in circulation. Not that this would happen quickly and magically, of course. Even with strict federal regulations it might take decades for them to have a significant impact. Now to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, you have to start from the premise that guns could prevent murders. This is a claim often repeated by 2nd amendment supporters. The problem is, not only am I not aware of any statistics or study to support such a claim, but I don't see how one would even be possible. You might be able to find numbers for crimes that were prevented thanks to guns I guess, but you'd also have to take into account the crimes that were made possible because of guns as well. Anyway, on a more serious note, the Gun Owners of America explains the heart of the problem rather well: And this is why little can be done in the US. The Pandora's box that was open will Ok, so until something is done, the odd is on all of our hands, right? Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 minute ago, TerraPrime said: I seem to recall reading someone somewhere saying that we can't trust statistics because it's always manipulated to fit an agenda. I wish I could remember who said that. In was looking for data on murder rates by guns, nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: In was looking for data on murder rates by guns, nothing else. Keep tap-dancing and you might just convince yourself that you didn't just do the same thing you said is unreliable to make it look like your understanding of reality is reliable. I will also add that the data-that-is-in-any-way-statistical-I-pinky-swear-trust-me you used is far less credible, as has been shown, than the statistics the we have on the issue. But you know, feel free to categorically reject any statistics that don't fit your worldview while simultaneously use garbage statistics that fit yours. It's a free country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, TerraPrime said: Keep tap-dancing and you might just convince yourself that you didn't just do the same thing you said is unreliable to make it look like your understanding of reality is reliable. I will also add that the data-that-is-in-any-way-statistical-I-pinky-swear-trust-me you used is far less credible, as has been shown, than the statistics the we have on the issue. But you know, feel free to categorically reject any statistics that don't fit your worldview while simultaneously use garbage statistics that fit yours. It's a free country. Show me the "real" statistics. I went off an article I seen on Facebook, where the guy was neither left or right. His statistics showed the same thing as I linked. So which is right? I willing to be proving wrong. I just need to know the ones you show me are credible and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 46 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Show me the "real" statistics. I went off an article I seen on Facebook, where the guy was neither left or right. His statistics showed the same thing as I linked. So which is right? I willing to be proving wrong. I just need to know the ones you show me are credible and why. Probably the best and most recent comprehensive examination of gun control efficacy is this review of 130 studies in over 10 countries by a Columbia epidemiologist. It's been written up very recently at Vox and when it was published by WaPo. Its conclusion states: Quote Three general observations emerge from this analysis: 1) The simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of firearms regulations reduced firearm-related deaths in certain countries; 2) some specific restrictions on purchase, access, and use of firearms are associated with reductions in firearm deaths; 3) challenges in ecological design and the execution of studies limit the confidence in study findings and the conclusions that can be derived from them. [...] There is also compelling evidence of specific laws being associated with reductions in the rate of firearm deaths. Studies on background checks suggest that the quality of systems used to review applicants, in terms of the access to local and federal information on mental health conditions and criminal and domestic violence history, is a critical component of these laws. However, in some longitudinal studies, little attention is given to whether states conducted local checks and how results would vary after adjusting models for this. US studies examining more detailed aspects of background check laws describe how requiring checks on restraining orders is associated with reductions in intimate partner female firearm homicides, and how checking local mental health facility records is linked to fewer firearm suicides. Regarding child access prevention laws, most studies in the United States show that additional laws allowing for felony prosecution of offenders are associated with greater reductions in unintentional deaths among children. In addition, most studies show that relaxing firearm restrictions, as in the case of “stand your ground” laws or the repealing of existing permit laws, may increase the rate of firearm homicides. We also found international evidence suggesting that, in a particular setting with high rates of homicides, banning the carrying of firearms on sensitive days along with police enforcement can be an effective strategy to reduce homicide rates. Perhaps don't rely on Facebook to provide sound research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Don't be a smart alec. Especially when I said I was willing to have my mind changed. Im open to listening, dont be an ass. Look. I still and always will think that stats will be skewed when one has an agenda. But you showed me no statistcs, at all. To prove the ones I linked wrong. And just because it was in Facebook does not mean it's not correct or verifiable information. I wish I could find the original story so I could link it. Here's the thing. I am for stricter regulations, taking semi-automatic guns off the market, those with mental health issues not owning and even passing a test, just like a driver's license. Anyway, with all of those I don't feel in the US that it'll have any dramatic effect. The way we feel about guns in America is totally different than the rest of the world. Gangs don't buy legal guns. You can't when you have a felony. So, what stops those from getting guns when they get them now when their not allowed? Its all just a bunch of hypotheticals. Anyway, I'm for restrictions and such, just not a total ban. I believe law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. A constitutional one. Until the 2nd amendment can be repealed or what have you, Its a right the same as freedom of speech. ETA: I've read many articles on this subject. And those stats I linked are ones I find most often. I'm just googling this stuff and reading what pops up. I don't know what's left or right. Don't care. I'm neither left or right, I will look at opinions on both sides of the fence. Yet, no one is really trying to help here. Just belittle and mock. Great strategy in bringing someone over to your side! No wonder Trump is the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Is this unreliable? You know this shows there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Where there are more guns violence is lower and vice versa. What hard concrete proof can anyone show me that is unbiased? ETA: and proof that it is unbiased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 MSJ: serious question: Why do yo suppose the GOP repeatedly prevents any federal funding for studies on gun violence? Honestly, what do you think their motivation is if the information is either inconclusive or supports their contention as you claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Don't be a smart alec. Especially when I said I was willing to have my mind changed. Im open to listening, dont be an ass. Sorry, can't help myself. 20 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: I still and always will think that stats will be skewed when one has an agenda. But you showed me no statistcs, at all. Well, that first sentence suggests the second sentence is pointless. Regardless, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed study (or, actually, a study of studies). There are plenty of "statistics" in the "Findings" section - and a clickable link on the left side to get there. The rest is up to you. 29 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Anyway, with all of those I don't feel in the US that it'll have any dramatic effect. Except most studies find that a lot of gun control measures do have a significant effect. 30 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Its all just a bunch of hypotheticals. Empirical research is not hypothetical. 31 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Anyway, I'm for restrictions and such, just not a total ban. Pretty sure everybody here understands a total ban is never going to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to employ measures that durably have been identified to curb violence and/or deaths. 36 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: I don't know what's left or right. Don't care. I'm neither left or right, I will look at opinions on both sides of the fence. Yet, no one is really trying to help here. Just belittle and mock. The research I linked you is not left nor right, it's analyzing results. The mocking is out of frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 Didn't know they prevented it. That's a rhetorical question @James Arryn. Look, I am all for anything to make this a safer place without a straight ban. I feel the right to bear arms constitutional and it's there for a reason. To protect ourselves against tyranny. Now, I know you'll say, "MSJ, you'd would stand no chance of the military were to intercede." Your probably right. But, with no guns to protect yourself against tyranny or he'll dirty corrupt police, you stand no chance at all. I believe the 2nd amendment was put in for good reason, and yes, I think it holds true still today. And really when I said I don't care about stats because they will be skewed to fit the agenda of those doing the study, it's because I haven't seen any that people say are undoubtedly unbiased. I've asked for people to link an unbiased study on the correlation of violent crimes before and after in countries with bans, and no one has provided one. I want raw data. Not opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Sorry, can't help myself. Well, that first sentence suggests the second sentence is pointless. Regardless, I provided a link to a peer-reviewed study (or, actually, a study of studies). There are plenty of "statistics" in the "Findings" section - and a clickable link on the left side to get there. The rest is up to you. Except most studies find that a lot of gun control measures do have a significant effect. Empirical research is not hypothetical. Pretty sure everybody here understands a total ban is never going to happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to employ measures that durably have been identified to curb violence and/or deaths. The research I linked you is not left nor right, it's analyzing results. The mocking is out of frustration. I will take time tonight and give you the respect you deserve for linking it for me. Don't be frustrated. Not everyone thinks alike. And, mocking and belittling will never bring anyone around to see what you want them to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Is this unreliable? You know this shows there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Where there are more guns violence is lower and vice versa. What hard concrete proof can anyone show me that is unbiased? ETA: and proof that it is unbiased. Um, this is flat out inaccurate. The study I found is behind a pay wall, but here's the conclusion: Quote RESULTS: Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11). In a linear regression model with firearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor (P <.0001) of firearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance (P = .05) only. CONCLUSION: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24054955 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Is this unreliable? You know this shows there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. Where there are more guns violence is lower and vice versa. For someone who professes to not like it when authors clearly have an agenda, you sure like digging up interesting sources. I stopped reading after this: Quote The point is, the "more guns = more violence" argument and the "gun ownership = decreased crime" argument both sidestep the complicating socioeconomic, cultural and psychological factors affecting violent crime. Economic disparities within countries, along with periods of economic downturn, drive up crime and homicides, and violent crimes occurs four times more often in countries with wide income gaps. That's just flagrantly wrong. Any study will include socioeconomic factors as covariates if it wants any hope of being published or viewed as valid. 16 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: What hard concrete proof can anyone show me that is unbiased? ETA: and proof that it is unbiased. What's proof to you? And how can anyone possibly be completely unbiased? You are asking for impossible standards while concurrently providing support from sources with virtually no standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, dmc515 said: For someone who professes to not like it when authors clearly have an agenda, you sure like digging up interesting sources. I stopped reading after this: That's just flagrantly wrong. Any study will include socioeconomic factors as covariates if it wants any hope of being published or viewed as valid. What's proof to you? And how can anyone possibly be completely unbiased? You are asking for impossible standards while concurrently providing support from sources with virtually no standards. I'm just finding stuff and asking your opinion of its unbiased or not. Why can't there be unbiased, raw data out there? I don't understand that. Then your essentially saying that there will always be a bias and that will effect the study. So your agreeing with me then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 11 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Didn't know they prevented it. Holy crap dude, you tell us you've done a lot of reading on this topic but you didn't know about a 20-year research ban? I guess none of your Ted Nugent sourced articles bothered to mention it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 You ask what I want as proof? I want to know the homicide, violent crime rates before and after the band were instituted in countries with bans. When I look for them, I find the graphs and stats I've linked already, over and over. I don't find anything to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: You ask what I want as proof? I want to know the homicide, violent crime rates before and after the band were instituted in countries with bans. When I look for them, I find the graphs and stats I've linked already, over and over. I don't find anything to the contrary. It's almost as if someone has been preventing any research into the kind of stuff you want! But some day, before the heat death of the universe, someone here might serve up some easily-digested yet thoroughly sourced and immaculately presented research on a silver platter for you to consume at your leisure, and you might decide it's not the work of shamelessly biased gun-hating librul eggheads pursuing a "gun ban" agenda, so kudos for your unimpeachable fair-mindedness and dedication to fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: I'm just finding stuff and asking your opinion of its unbiased or not. Why can't there be unbiased, raw data out there? I don't understand that. Then your essentially saying that there will always be a bias and that will effect the study. So your agreeing with me then. I am agreeing with the self-evident truth that nobody is completely unbiased. That does not mean researchers cannot design studies that does indeed generate data and correlations that speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said: Holy crap dude, you tell us you've done a lot of reading on this topic but you didn't know about a 20-year research ban? I guess none of your Ted Nugent sourced articles bothered to mention it? Nope, never heard of it. Never looked into it. As I said, I'm looking for raw data on homicide/violent crime rates before and after bans. I read articles all the time about the subject. Never knew about that, is honesty a problem? And, just stop with the Ted Nugent BS. I don't like the guy or his ideas. I'm not a gun nut or a Republican for that matter. Why is it that when faced with someone with opposing thoughts (in my case, to a small degree), the default around here is ridicule? I'm not as smart or as articulate as @Lew Theobald, but it was nice to see someone stand up to the bullying and ganging up on of people that don't go by the status quo around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 12, 2017 Share Posted October 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Nope, never heard of it. Never looked into it. As I said, I'm looking for raw data on homicide/violent crime rates before and after bans. I read articles all the time about the subject. Never knew about that, is honesty a problem? And, just stop with the Ted Nugent BS. I don't like the guy or his ideas. I'm not a gun nut or a Republican for that matter. Why is it that when faced with someone with opposing thoughts (in my case, to a small degree), the default around here is ridicule? I'm not as smart or as articulate as @Lew Theobald, but it was nice to see someone stand up to the bullying and ganging up on of people that don't go by the status quo around here. All right, next time you advance one of your poorly sourced, self-contradictory arguments, the board liberal hivemind will choose a single representative to address it so you don't feel overwhelmed. I guess I just assumed, since you were getting mad at me for things other posters said to you, that you were under the impression you were only arguing with one person. Eta: I can't speak for the others, but it's become clear you aren't actually receptive to solid arguments or data, so frustration and mockery of your inconsistent positions is all but inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.