Gun Control Discussion 2

[Mother Cocanuts]

22 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The unreasonable part seems to be where the evidence for gun control is unreasonably ignored.

The evidence isn't ignored; it's insufficient. There's a difference.

[Mother Cocanuts]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

You contended "no thorough study has extracted sufficient evidence which suggests stringent controls and regulations have led to less death/violence."  In pointing out how thoroughly and laughably wrong you are in this, would seem pretty sensible to focus on citing the studies that do provide said evidence.

You haven't pointed out how "thoroughly and laughably" wrong I am; you provided a composite of various studies where you purposefully omitted information that would undermine your argument.

5 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

There's effectively no way to "prove" causation with observational data,

This is incorrect. (I don't imagine that you have any experience gathering data, but one can establish causation with observational data.) One such method is the RCM.

[BigFatCoward]

17 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The evidence isn't ignored; it's insufficient. There's a difference.

Australia. Port Arthur. Again. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

you provided a composite of various studies where you purposefully omitted information that would undermine your argument.

No, I purposefully omitted the summary of studies that did not provide evidence because your contention was there are no studies that do provide evidence.  That statement is manifestly false, other than falling back on your impossible standards of "thorough" or "sufficient."

8 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

This is incorrect.

Ok, have fun convincing reviewers you've "proved" a hypothesis by employing any form of econometric analysis of observational data.  

[Rippounet]

 

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

"I'm tired" is not an argument. The burden of proof remains with the gun control crowd because they are the ones who assert that stringent regulations or bans will lead to fewer instances/acts of death/violence. It's not unreasonable to demand they prove their argument.

What relevance does any other country have in this situation? Our laws should reflect their laws for what reason? The campaign for gun control in the U.S. is about the circumstances of the U.S. Arguing that we are not like other developed countries is not much of a criticism.

But that's the thing. The US is the only developed country with the individual rights to bear arms in its constitution. It also has an average death rate by firearms that's 25 times higher on average than any other developed country. That's why the burden of proof is on you. It should always have been on you from the start. You are the one who should be trying to show that regulations don't work, because evidently the US is the country with the problem.
Of course, the very existence of this thread is based on the premise that there is a problem to be discussed. If you don't accept the premise then there is nothing to discuss. In fact, if you don't believe there is a problem you have no role to play in the discussion, except preventing others from having an honest discussion about it. Which is exactly what you've been doing for the past week or so. Which is why some people have been labeling you as a troll, assuming that on some level or the other you are doing it on purpose. Because you have refused the basic premises on which the discussion was supposed to be based and brought nothing to the table as far as addressing the issue at hand goes.

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

There is no "collective security" without individual rights. The collective entity doesn't exist without the individuals who comprise them. Collective security is only a camouflage that attempts to justify subjugating individuals to the agendas of other individuals. "Right-wing anarchism" is a misnomer. Freedom is a more apt description.

That's an extremist's view. Whether we call it "anarchy" or "libertarianism" or simply "americanism" doesn't matter. The fact remains that all societies set limits on individuals' freedom in the name of the collective. Limits have been set on every single individual right that is contained in the Bill of Rights ; most landmark Supreme Court cases make this very clear. And there are, in fact, many limits on the 2nd amendment, even today:

Quote

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Recognize this? This is the majority decision in DC v. Heller. Written by Scalia, who can hardly be accused of being progressive.
I don't see how it's possible to read that without accepting the fact that there is a need for collective security that can trump individual rights. Or that there is, at least, an assumption that some form of "greater good" allows legislatures to limit individual rights.

Because individuals don't exist in a vacuum. All humans live in human societies. Therefore there are rules and laws that they must abide by. All societies must balance the needs of the collective with individual rights. Stray too far in one direction and you get authoritarianism or worse. Stray too far in the other and you get chaos. Or a lot of bodybags at least.

And there's worse. How about this one:

Quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

"... to effect their safety and happiness." How clear can it be? Government exists to protect the right to safety and happiness.

Even if you refuse the concept of a collective security... You're still left with an individual right to security. The right of each and every individual not to be threatened by lunatics with guns. Bill O'Reilly of all people is actually quite clear about it: the right to bear arms infringes on the individual right to be secure from loons with guns.

There is no absolute freedom because individual rights collide with each other. One man's freedom is another man's nightmare. Unless you live by yourself in the woods or something.

Just a random example, the first one popping through my head: vaccination. Another thorny controversial issue. Another one when individual rights collide. Or, to state it more clearly, where there is a clear conflict between individual rights and desires and collective safety.
Apparently three American States don't even allow religious exemptions. Wow. So collective security trumps freedom of religion in some parts of America. How incredible. Or are you also against mandatory vaccination, perhaps? You should be, if you are coherent in your thinking.

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

And you don't have to. I assure you that no one is losing sleep over it.

Good. So you won't mind me saying that you are a right-wing anarchist and that people like you who think the individual right to bear arms should not be restricted or regulated don't care a damn about the casualties this right entails. You don't give a damn. In fact, your insistence that it's "all about the argument" made that quite clear. Because no, this discussion was never about "arguments." It should have been about how to prevent people from dying, how to save lives. And anyone who is sincere about wanting to save lives should be willing to err on the side of caution. Anyone who isn't a cynical cold-hearted right-wing anarchist who doesn't even believe in their own government that is. And if you just don't care about your country being torn apart by crime and mass shootings, just be honest and say it. Stop playing with people and just admit that you just don't care.

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No, I purposefully omitted the summary of studies that did not provide evidence because your contention was there are no studies that do provide evidence.  That statement is manifestly false, other than falling back on your impossible standards of "thorough" or "sufficient."

My contention was that there was insufficient evidence, not that there was none. (There's a difference.) And if applying the scientific method is an impossible standard, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, have fun convincing reviewers you've "proved" a hypothesis by employing any form of [econometric] analysis of observational data.  

I will.

 

 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

I will.

World needs plenty of bartenders.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The evidence isn't ignored; it's insufficient. There's a difference.

The evidence is insufficient because the NRA refuses to fund studies to establish such evidence.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The evidence is insufficient because the NRA refuses to fund studies to establish such evidence.

Because the NRA refuses to let the federal government fund studies, etc...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Because the NRA refuses to let the federal government fund studies, etc...

That's what I was trying to say.

[ants]

On 10/14/2017 at 9:36 AM, Tywin et al. said:

But if that happens, won't it create a vacuum for a new group to take it's place? I can't recall their name, but there's another pro Second Amendment rights group that's already trying to box out the NRA over bump stocks.

Apologies for snipping most of your post, but there's something specific about this that jumped out at me. I took French for 5 years, but I don't know a ton about the culture when it comes to depicting guns in T.V. shows and movies, or how much of the U.S. media that you import. That said, in a lot of non-dystopian futuristic Syfy movies and shows, most of today's problems have been solved. There's an abundance of food and water. Racial harmony, at least between humans, has been achieved. Environmentalism is widely supported. I could go on with more examples, but one thing is still omnipresent: the gun. It's still an integral part of futuristic societies. Now maybe this argument is flawed because it's based around fiction that's largely U.S. centric, but it seems to me that the gun isn't going anywhere any time soon. 

Demolition Man had all the guns in museums!

[TrueMetis]

That was not a utopia though.

[Seli]

On 21/10/2017 at 7:05 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

...

There is no "collective security" without individual rights. The collective entity doesn't exist without the individuals who comprise them. Collective security is only a camouflage that attempts to justify subjugating individuals to the agendas of other individuals. "Right-wing anarchism" is a misnomer. Freedom is a more apt description.

...

Yes? There is an individual right to self-defence. Statistics show that a very good way to do that is to control access and handling of guns. So (barring the weird second amendment situation) this is an great argument in favour of gun control on the basis of individual rights.

The situation is so weird because currently the second amendment apparently supersedes the basic individual right to self defence.

[Darth Richard II]

5 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

That was not a utopia though.

Whoa! Spoilers!

[ants]

On 10/22/2017 at 1:16 AM, Rippounet said:

Actually, in any country that doesn't have a "right to bear arms" in its constitution, there pretty much is an absolute, correct, easy, and straightforward response to gun issues: regulation.
The issue only becomes "complex" if you consider that individual rights are at least as equally important as collective security, something which in itself has heavy ideological implications, and which anywhere else than the USA is described as some form of right-wing anarchism.
So every time this conversation pops up it focuses on the US and often sets aside just how bizarre American gun culture is to the rest of the developed world. The defense of the 2nd amendment (with its usual arguments about semantics or political philosophy) obscures the fact that almost no other developed country sees firearms as an individual right. A quick google search tells me that three countries in the entire world have such a provision in their constitution and that the two others (Guatemala and Mexico) copied the US.
My point is, non-Americans have little reason not to see gun aficionados as nutjobs. And sorry, but none of the arguments made in the last 30 pages have helped at all. Nor do the current arguments against gun control.

Take Bill O'Reilly:

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: sorry, as a non-American, I personally have no reason to show any particular respect to the 2nd amendment and its proponents. Such respect should be earned through actual conversation. Like, if you're not a nutjob, prove it. I'm tired of seeing the burden of proof systematically be on the gun control crowd just because "America, fuck yeah!".

And on a lighter note, here's a crazy idea that might even work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0UUrMmoPME

 

That's pretty much factually wrong.  One of the articles early in this thread had a correction, where it mentioned that Norway after a mass shooting had an inquiry.  None of the recommendations were implemented.  There are many countries which do not have the right to bear arms in the constitution, where there would be many who would be against further gun regulation. 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, ants said:

That's pretty much factually wrong.  One of the articles early in this thread had a correction, where it mentioned that Norway after a mass shooting had an inquiry.  None of the recommendations were implemented.  There are many countries which do not have the right to bear arms in the constitution, where there would be many who would be against further gun regulation. 

Because in such countries guns are already pretty heavily restricted to begin with.
It was already said in this thread that regulations can't prevent all tragedies. No doubt in Breivnik's case the Norwegians concluded that the regulations were not what had failed them and thus that no extra ones would be necessary.
Just read about Norwegian gun laws and you'll understand.
After all, even after Breivnik's devastating killing spree, Norway's death rate by firearms was still lower than that of the US. Which is remarkable when you bear in mind that Norway's population is sixty times less than that of the US.

[ants]

31 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Because in such countries guns are already pretty heavily restricted to begin with.
It was already said in this thread that regulations can't prevent all tragedies. No doubt in Breivnik's case the Norwegians concluded that the regulations were not what had failed them and thus that no extra ones would be necessary.
Just read about Norwegian gun laws and you'll understand.
After all, even after Breivnik's devastating killing spree, Norway's death rate by firearms was still lower than that of the US. Which is remarkable when you bear in mind that Norway's population is sixty times less than that of the US.

Actually, this had nothing to do with Breivnik, it was another mass murder much earlier.  And not all the nations have strong firearm regulations, although they'll generally be stronger than the US.  

I'm not sure why Norway's death rate by firearms is particularly relevant though (and should have nothing to do with relative populations since it is a rate). The key isn't firearm homicide, its homicide and suicide full stop.  That's why the Australian experience is so inconclusive - yes firearm homicides and suicides have reduced, but so have non-firearm homicides and suicides.  

[Rippounet]

44 minutes ago, ants said:

I'm not sure why Norway's death rate by firearms is particularly relevant though (and should have nothing to do with relative populations since it is a rate).

Rates have everything to do with the size of the population, it's basic math. A single deadly mass shooting will considerably increase the death rate by firearms in a small country. Breivnik alone caused Norway's death rate by firearms to go up by more than 50% in 2011.

44 minutes ago, ants said:

The key isn't firearm homicide, its homicide and suicide full stop.  That's why the Australian experience is so inconclusive - yes firearm homicides and suicides have reduced, but so have non-firearm homicides and suicides.  

"Inconclusive" is a pretty strong word. There definitely was a downward trend in the Australian death rate by firearms before heavy regulation was introduced, as evidenced by this graph:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f-1200-900/australia-gun-deaths-bi.png
And yeah, generally speaking, most Western societies are becoming less violent anyway.

But one way or the other, the numbers do show a dramatic difference after the introduction of regulation:
http://www.betootaadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

The worst that could be said about the Australian experience is that it only accelerated the decrease in gun deaths.
So it's only saved something like at least a thousand lives or so.
You know, just a thousand lives or so.
Pretty much nothing, right?

 

 

[ants]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Rates have everything to do with the size of the population, it's basic math. A single deadly mass shooting will considerably increase the death rate by firearms in a small country. Breivnik alone caused Norway's death rate by firearms to go up by more than 50% in 2011.

Ok, so you meant directly in that year/period, the rates were still lower despite the big uptick due to Breivnik.  You didn't make that clear.  I thought you were generally saying that post that time (i.e. in the 6 years since), the Norwegian rates were better than the USA's, and that wouldn't have anything to do with population sizes. 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Rates have everything to do with the size of the population, it's basic math. A single deadly mass shooting will considerably increase the death rate by firearms in a small country. Breivnik alone caused Norway's death rate by firearms to go up by more than 50% in 2011.

"Inconclusive" is a pretty strong word. There definitely was a downward trend in the Australian death rate by firearms before heavy regulation was introduced, as evidenced by this graph:
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f-1200-900/australia-gun-deaths-bi.png
And yeah, generally speaking, most Western societies are becoming less violent anyway.

But one way or the other, the numbers do show a dramatic difference after the introduction of regulation:
http://www.betootaadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Gun_deaths_over_time_in_the_US_and_Australia.png

The worst that could be said about the Australian experience is that it only accelerated the decrease in gun deaths.
So it's only saved something like at least a thousand lives or so.
You know, just a thousand lives or so.
Pretty much nothing, right?

I'm referring to the conclusions in the 538 article posted on the first page of the thread, which referred to several studies of the Australian experience. And the point wasn't that Australian gun deaths didn't go down - it was that non-firearm deaths also went down.  So how much was due to the restrictions and how much was happening anyway is pretty much conjecture.  

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, ants said:

I'm referring to the conclusions in the 538 article posted on the first page of the thread, which referred to several studies of the Australian experience. And the point wasn't that Australian gun deaths didn't go down - it was that non-firearm deaths also went down.  So how much was due to the restrictions and how much was happening anyway is pretty much conjecture.  

True.
But It's always going to be difficult to be positively certain of causality. Numbers are always subject to interpretation.
If we are to assess the impact of gun control honestly, I suppose we would have to look at several aspects of the problem:
1) Does gun control seem to lead to a decrease in death rates by firearms where it's implemented?
2) Does the absence of gun control seem to lead to an increase in death rates by firearms?
And perhaps even:
3) Does it look like there is a correlation between the firearms ownership rate and the death by firearms rate?
It's not enough to have one aspect of the issue be "inconclusive" or subject to conjecture because that's always going to be the case. At least if the level of proof you're demanding is high (which is fair enough).
What we need to do is look at the greater picture and try to see if a global pattern seems to emerge.
In the final analysis, it's always going to be conjecture on some level or the other. And some anomalies are bound to appear here or there (Switzerland comes to mind). But even if 1), 2) and 3) are all inconclusive separately, if together they seem to tell the same story, then the logical conclusion is likely correct.

In all honesty, if there were more anomalies like Switzerland I might reconsider my position (they wouldn't be statistical anomalies anymore).
But I've just haven't seen enough "inconclusive" studies or statistical anomalies to reconsider my overall conclusions on the subject.
And all in all there's a lot of data on the subject. Way enough to act on it, if there is a will to address the issue.
And anyway, what if it's wrong and it doesn't really have that much of an impact? What's to be lost really? Guns are still available in most Western countries. Is it so bad to demand that ownership be restricted to people who take tests and/or register their weapons?
It's only in the US that bearing arms is seen as a fundamental constitutional right that shouldn't be restricted. Everyone else seems to be ok with some regulation, even if it's to err on the side of caution. Technically, any Westerner can have a gun if they really want to.