General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat was Jon Stewart's exact quote last night on dystopias and gun violence?
Addressing the paranoid "We need lots of guns in case the government attacks us" crowd, he said something along the lines, "People who are placing their fears of a dystopic future over the dystopic present that we have now?"
What was the exact quote? It was perfect, whatever it was.
malaise
(269,157 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)That was brilliant....
malaise
(269,157 posts)It was great
merrily
(45,251 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't want to share.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Everyone knows that knowledge is passed from one person to the next depending only upon life experiences and hearsay.
JHB
(37,161 posts)After showing clips of a Jan. 7 FOX News interview with a young man who confronted a senator about gun control (citing Stalin, Cambodia, Hitler) and the Alex Jones meltdown:
"Hoooooly shit. No one's taking away ALL the guns. But now I get it, now I see what's happening. So this is what it is. Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually, in reality, happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler."
tridim
(45,358 posts)Gun worship is driving people crazy.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Acute fear & paranoia, along with a particular form of schizophrenia (thinking you're Rambo) leads to gun-religion.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)Many of the RBKA crowd wants to obscure the technological advances that turn what used to be a militia weapon into a borderline weapon of mass destruction.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)I guess they really aren't better than Taliban themselves. Culturally they're committing green on blue crime against our nation.
malaise
(269,157 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)malaise
(269,157 posts)If you have the video you don't need Google - further some people do have photographic memories
merrily
(45,251 posts)why are you telling me this:
further some people do have photographic memories
I posted about people with eidetic memories being one of the exceptions to my remark about Google, which I had qualified with the word "few." Did you assume that I posted that without realizing that some people do have eidetic memories?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Legislators make law. They are the ones whose fears and/or lust for campaign donations determine what gun legislation we have or don't have. Blaming anyone but them for the condition of our gun legislation is not exactly speaking truth to power.
I rarely miss an episode of Daily Show. If I don't catch it during the week, I will usually watch four episodes in a row on the weekend, via On Demand. I have a lot of respect for Stewart's intelligence and his comedic genius. I am disappointed in this approach, though.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)to make rational choices is no reason to let them off the hook. These gas bags don't elect themselves.
OneGrassRoot
(22,920 posts)Baitball Blogger
(46,755 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,190 posts)Javaman
(62,532 posts)"we need a big strong military, but we need lots of guns to protect us from the government!"
it's as if they think 1) the military isn't part of the government 2) the military won't protect the government in the event of insurrection.
It seems that the gun nuts want live out the george s patton fantasy of trying to shoot down german fighter planes with a pistol.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)No ground troops are ever necessary, and a large populace with only small arms and limited supplies available could never possibly resist a vastly smaller yet better equipped military force. Nope, it's never happened, ever......
And for the record, no, I'm not implying I think we should take up arms against our government with my sarcastic remarks, only that the reasoning used in the post I'm replying too is completely flawed. Except for the part about the big military. I tend to agree with Javaman there.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)> nd a large populace with only small arms and limited supplies available could never possibly resist a vastly smaller yet better equipped military force. Nope, it's never happened, ever.
Actually it hasn't UNLESS that large populace has a strong foreign power working either overtly or covertly behind the scenes funneling money & arms to them.
That's the FACTUAL FAIL in that particular Talking Point.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Jon would have to first explain how the proposed gun control would begin to address the violent crime and homicide rates in general (here's a hint, he couldn't even if he were so inclined). And the implication here is that somehow so-called assault weapons are a major factor in our violent crime rate, when in fact all rifles TOTAL are used in about 3% of violent crimes. Check out this video:
What is clear is that you are trying to treat what could be called, at best, a symptom of the problem, and failing to address the root causes entirely. You are supporting an agenda that restricts your personal liberty for the illusion of an increase in safety, which is completely against the ideals of the progressive movement.
Robb
(39,665 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Study after study has found that gun availability is linked to higher homicide rates. The whole "it's just a tool" argument is completely idiotic. The US doesn't have higher violent crime rates than the rest of the developed world, but our homicide rates are way off the chart.
Why? Because in the US it's much easier to get a gun, and guns are much more lethal than fists or knives or clubs.
It's really pretty simple. The guns are not a symptom. The guns are a cause.
Response to DanTex (Reply #22)
Post removed
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,190 posts)Yes. Guns cause violence. They are a tool specifically designed to kill, injure, or simulate killing or injuring another person or thing. They are arguably the most efficient and effective deadly weapon out there, given that they are designed as such.
Now enjoy your--oh, never mind. You're not there anymore.
Ruttersville
(8 posts)And still laughing at peoples inability to apply realistic root cause analysis to what causes violence in a population.
Vehicles are the cause of drunk driving fatalities?
Government failure to provide adequate mental health services is a major factor, and guess who gutted the programs that helped?
Republicans!
But instead of placing blame where blame belongs, people would rather jump on the emotional bandwagon de jour.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,190 posts)Mwa-ha-ha---err, never mind, you've been tombstoned.
*Ahem*
Looks like this particular poster.....found himself in quite a rut..........
YYYEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This should get you started.
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.
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
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.
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
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/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates,
and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy
for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using
county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun
prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.
Under certain reasonable assumptions, the average annual marginal social cost of household gun
ownership is in the range $100 to $1800.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on
gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual
rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during
the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun
ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact
of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of
gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked.
Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
the scientific literature on the health
risks and benefits of having a gun in
the home for the gun owner and his/
her family. For most contemporary
Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the
home is greater than the benefit. The
evidence is overwhelming for the fact
that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun
accidents are most likely to occur in
homes with guns. There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is a
risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and
there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun
in the home reduces the likelihood or
severity of injury during an altercation
or break-in. Thus, groups such as the
American Academy of Pediatrics urge
parents not to have guns in the home
http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right Dan?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or simply hiding behind buzzwords in an attempt to deny the scientific evidence...
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)As I'm fairly certain each has been posted before.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You don't want to even try to understand the evidence. Why bother with science, when you have youtube videos and NRA talking points? Why try and make a cogent argument when you just repeat some buzzwords?
It's a very common trait among right-wingers. Keep the head buried in the sand, don't let any evidence leak in.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)What I'm saying is that I do not find it compelling as it relates to this particular issue. If we were to address what I believe to be the root causes of crime (poverty, poor education, unemployment, along with a lot of other social factors) but still found ourselves with a serious violent crime problem, then I would be more inclined to believe there is something more beyond pure correlation between violent crime and the availability of firearms. Assuming one were able to effectively address the failures of that correlation without trying to explain it away by citing the differences between communities as it pertains to what I listed as the true root causes of violent crime earlier, because that leads right back to the true root cause NOT being the firearms.
But of course, addressing poverty, education, unemployment...those are all just NRA talking points according to you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you did, you would realize that the US does not have violent crime rates out of line with the rest of the developed world. Only homicide rates. We don't actually have a violent crime problem. We have a homicide problem specifically. A gun homicide problem, that is -- even our non-gun homicide rates are not out of line.
In the last post you claimed you had "significant evidence that not only disproves that correlative relationship". In this post, you claim that there are "failures of that correlation". But the only evidence you have actually provided is a youtube video.
I'll ask again. Do you have any alternate explanation that explains the statistically significant link between gun ownership and homicide, other than the obvious and well-documented fact that gun crime is much more lethal than non-gun crimes? You can blather on about "root causes", but that doesn't explain the statistical evidence.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)These Talking Point parrots wear me out. I don't know how you keep your strength up rebutting the SAME Talking Points for the N-th time.
We shouldn't even be subjected to those long-long-long-long-ago rebutted NRA lies on what is supposed to be a Liberal chatboard.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)At some point the admins should decide that NRA talking points belong in Creative Speculation.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)1) waste Liberal's time rebutting them (for the 3,000,000th time)
2) try to move the gun-Overton Window to the right amongst Liberals
Ruttersville
(8 posts)and by in large love to read post made by people who share most of my thoughts and desires.
I find 99% of the post here quite informative...........
First and foremost you failed to provide unbiased sources.
Harvard Injury Control Research Center
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
The research reported here was supported by a grant from the Joyce Foundation
http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/Dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
Duggan - More Guns More Crime
Numerous prominate statistical peers/experts have discredited his work regarding gun control!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936974/
Taking all these points together, we believe the study by Duggan et al. is fatally flawed. The specifics of the hypothesis tested in the study essentially precluded the possibility of a positive finding, and the statistical power problem in itself is sufficient to render the study's results essentially incapable of interpretation.23 Beyond this, the data used for the analysis contain important ascertainment and classification errors that introduce biases toward the null, and the results are not robust.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DugganLevitt2002.pdf
Oh look, Duggan is an expert in the corruption of Sumo wrestling too!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/hemcvpdf.pdf
And now lets examine David Hemenway PhD.
From his curriculum vitae:
Grants 1995-2011
13. Principal Investigator. Firearm Injury Statistics System Coordinating Center. Joyce Foundation. 1/1/99-12/31/01. $600,000.
22. Principal Investigator. New Studies on Firearms. Joyce Foundation. 1/1/01-12/31/03. $325,000.
24. Principal Investigator. National Violent Injury Statistics System. Joyce Foundation. 10/01-2/04. $425,000.
36. Principal Investigator. Firearms Research, Technical Assistance and Communications. Joyce Foundation. 9/01/05-8/31/07. $700,000.
40. Principal Investigator. Research, Dissemination and Technical Assistance on Firearm Issues. Joyce Foundation. 1/01/09-6/30/10. $600,000.
42. Principal Investigator. Preventing Firearm Violence: From Research to Practice. Joyce Foundation. 7/1/10-6/30/11. $600,000.
Hmmmm, $3.25 million dollars in grant money from the most dishonest anti-gun rights organization in existence.
Of course Hemenway would never let that paltry sum influence his research.
I guess you would believe that climate change is a myth because a study (funded by Exxon) said it was!
There are numerous causes of violence, but blaming the tool used by an individual is as flawed as ANY reason someone used to vote for Romney!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I notice that you haven't even attempted to address the content of the studies. Hmm. Why would that be?
Sorry, but these are peer reviewed studies. Which means that, unless you think that the editorial boards of all of the journals are in on the conspiracy (along with Harvard, UChicago, etc.), you're going to have to do a little better than "anti-gun bias".
I especially like your attack on Mark Duggan. You mean he has done research on more than just one topic! Blasphemy!
Ruttersville
(8 posts)I don't need to "review" their work when it's bought and paid for by the likes of the Joyce Foundation, AND reviewed by EXPERTS and found to be "fatally flawed".
I didn't attack Duggan, he was clearly discredited by YOURexperts David Hemenway, PhD.!!!!!!!
(Guess you didn't take the time to read that did you?!)
I simply pointed out the "expert" YOU cited, was not an expert!
The "LOL" in all this is the fact that you failed to comprehend those SIMPLE concepts!!!!!
You should really learn to research and read yourself before you present "expert" studies, that way, only the person that wrote the study looks like an idiot.
I've proved my point, and I'm done with this.....
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I get that right-wingers are inherently suspicious of science, but, sorry to say, none of the authors have been "discredited" and none of the research is "bought and paid for". In fact, all of the authors are highly reputed researchers at top universities.
The funding comes from various sources, and all of the studies I cited have been published in peer-reviewed journals. Some of it the government, and some from private foundations that stepped in after the NRA got Republicans in congress to cut funds for gun violence research. But there's no profit motive, and there's no "big gun control". The proper analogy is not Exxon (that would be the NRA, with industry ties), but rather the American Cancer Society, which is also a private foundation, and which also funds research, and which is also opposed by an industry backed-lobby that tries to suppress research.
And, really, if the research were so flawed and corrupt as you say, I imagine you'd be able to find a single flaw in any of it. Right?
mountain grammy
(26,644 posts)of a shooter with a disturbed mind who found weapons of war right there in his own home because his mother feared some phantom menace who turned out to be her own son. Who is more disturbed here, the mother? the son? or you, who thinks the idea that military weapons cause violence is laughable? You're laughter is the evil laugh of a madman! Go find your own evidence, you can find many destroyed families and communities to laugh about.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Here's some statisics to make you feel better:
1 person used a legally obtained Bushmaster .223 to murder 27 innocent people.
1 person used an SA tactical shotgun, AR, and a Glock to murder 12 and injure 58 innocent people.
1 person used 2 semi-auto pistols to murder 32 innocent people.
etc.
etc.
Repeat till we all puke.
Maybe taking a little selfless emotion into account would actually help.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The plural of anecdote is not data.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass murders carried out with firearms"
"Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it"
"In 1996 34,040 people died from gunfire in the United States"
"In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms"
"Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146"
etc.
etc.
Ad nauseum.
Ruttersville
(8 posts)Since 1982 (Excluding Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every one of those 61 mass murders carried out with firearms took place place in gun free zones.
You forgot to cite this from Mother Jones: A majority were mentally illand many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill.
But hey, let's not address the actual cause and curb the violence, lets just pretend the mentality ill don't exist.
That's been working for us so far.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Hey! While we are at it - let's pretend that EVERY ONE who kills someone else with a gun is mentally ill!!
Squirrel!!
Hmmm...Let's ALSO pretend that if there were no Gun Free Zones, some armed super-civilian good guy with a gun would have stopped all those perps cold!! You Betcha!
And let's also pretend that all of those murders were just another example of only outlaws having guns because...oh...wait... never mind.
Wayne would be SOO proud!
The math is simple: 0 guns = 0 gun deaths
jmg257
(11,996 posts)You will learn, if here long enough.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Oh, he overwhelms you with lots of links, but that doesn't give them any extra weight. And honestly, anybody who dismisses the addressing of poverty, poor education, and job availability as "NRA talking points" isn't somebody who I'm trusting all that much to begin with.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Not ignoring the causes of crime and violence is certainly important. Especially when trying to reduce levels of cime and violence.
But if one wanted to substantially reduce the levels of gun related crime and violence, and the potential of more (which is THE issue being discussed), they could also substantially reduce the number of guns.
edit fixed tense
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)..crime as a whole. So exactly what have you achieved at that point? Nothing, except a further restriction on our personal liberties.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Because gun crimes are far more likely to result in homicide than non-gun crimes. Wow, you really don't know even the most basic facts about this issue!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Tell me, was their an increase in the rate of decline of the homicide rate in Australia after they passed their gun control measures? How about in the UK? No, there wasn't. The homicide rate in Australia has continued an overall decline, and the UK rate actually went up, then came back down again, after their 1967 legislation was passed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9411649/Graphic-how-the-murder-rate-has-fallen.html
The point is that I believe you are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to draconian gun control measures, and that our time and effort would be better served in combating poverty, poor education, unemployment, mental health care, etc.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> s, and that our time and effort would be better served in combating poverty, poor education, unemployment, mental health care, etc.
This is the insane calculus of Delicate Flowers: solving a BUNCH of MEGA problems (that have resisted being fixed since, well, humanity came down from the trees) is "easier" than more gun control & regulation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is well known that gun assaults are more likely to result in death than assaults with other weapons besides knives. So reducing the number of gun assaults will necessarily result in a lower homicide rate, even if every single gun assault is replaced with a knife assault or an assault with another weapon. Is this really that complicated?
If you are interested in an analysis of the result of Australia's gun ban, here is a good article for you to read from the Harvard School of Public Health. In fact, the homicide rate did decline since then, and there have been no mass shootings since. There is some debate as to how much of the homicide decline is attributable to the gun buyback, or to other factors -- it is not easy to determine statistically given that this is just one series of data. Again, this illustrates why you need to look at the evidence in it's totality, not just cherry pick a few stats that suit your argument. See, for example, the studies that I linked to above.
early 1990s. No study has explained why gun deaths were falling, or why they might be expected to
continue to fall. Yet most studies generally assumed that they would have continued to drop without
the NFA. Many studies still found strong evidence for a beneficial effect of the law.
From the perspective of 1996, it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future
evidence of a beneficial effect of the law. Whether or not one wants to attribute the effects as being
due to the law, everyone should be pleased with what happened in Australia after the NFAthe
elimination of firearm massacres (at least up to the present) and an immediate, and continuing,
reduction in firearm suicide and firearm homicide.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The article basically says "We can't be sure the ban had any impact, but we should all be happy about the continued decline in homicide rates, and attribute that happiness to the law!"
What a friggin joke. Seriously.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Beyond your false paraphrasing, that is. I'm not sure this upsets you so much -- it is a fair assessment of the evidence, which is that homicide rates did go down, but it's not clear how much of that is attributable to the ban.
I wonder if just the very idea of looking at evidence in a systematic way offends you. It must be a strange new experience for you to read a careful and sober analysis from an actual scientist, rather than cherry-picking and jumping to conclusions based on youtube videos.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and deaths. Crime as a whole can/should be addressed along with it, like last time.
But THAT was not the subject of this thread, or Stewart's show.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Alcohol like guns give cowards courage. A coward would not beat his wife when sober and a coward would not get close enough to another person to stab or hit them. Ok, it's not a real good analogy, but I think you are on the right track. Thank you for helping us make our point about guns being bad for any civilized society.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I do hope you enjoy distracting from the true root causes of crime in our nation while you're on your little, completely unsupported by any actual scientific evidence, crusade against guns and gun owners. I'm sure it must make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you are interested in some peer reviewed studies, see post 27. Of course, if you were actually interested in evidence, you wouldn't be posting youtube videos with NRA talking points in the first place...
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Not when there is significant evidence that not only disproves that correlative relationship, but that underscores the various root causes of violent crime in general. Of course, it must be so easy to just dismiss anything you don't agree with on this issue as simply an "NRA talking point, and therefore automatically untrue."
Yep, you haven't changed a bit.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And what "significant evidence" is there that disproves the relationship? And why is it that this evidence always appears in youtube video format, and not peer reviewed study format?
I'm interested. Explain how guns are associated with higher homicide rates, internationally, and also at the state and county level. That the relationship holds up even after controlling for various socioeconomic factors. And that the effect is specific to homicide -- more guns don't generally have a significant effect on overall violent crime rates, but they do on homicide, because guns are more deadly than other weapons.
I'm anxiously awaiting an alternate hypothesis that explains this statistical evidence.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)No, it doesn't. I know one of your papers you cited claims it does ("More guns, More crime" to be specific) but he actually failed to fully address the issue. Based on his position, Switzerland should have a firearm homicide rate of around 1.5, but it's a third of that. He simply does not account for other socio-economic factors as he claims he does, pure and simple.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Two of the studies I linked to do in fact control for various socioeconomic factors, the Duggan study you cite, and also the Ludwig Cook study. When you say "he actually failed to fully address the issue", that is a completely empty statement.
About Switzerland, both of those studies dealt with the US, not foreign countries (seriously, it helps to actually read them LOL). But beyond that, what you fundamentally misunderstand is that no study claims to be able to predict exactly what the homicide rate will just by the number of guns. Obviously there are other factors, which is why a single datapoint (e.g. Switzerland) neither proves or disproves much of anything. In order to draw meaningful conclusions you have to analyze the evidence in its totality.
I'm still waiting for your plausible alternate hypothesis that explains the statistical evidence. If it's all about "root causes" and guns have no effect, then how come study after study finds a link between gun ownership and homicide rates?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...but then think of that failure as somehow a proof of the veracity of the study itself. Wow, just wow. The failure to make that comparison and explain the discord between the two nations is what calls the veracity of the study into question. It is hardly an "empty statement."
And once again, correlation does NOT equal causation, which is what I've said time and time again, and all you have to bring to the table is correlative evidence. Given that your studies failed to address one of the biggest flaws in that correlative relationship as I've highlighted, I simply don't understand how you can argue that they show a causal link. And please don't act like you're not, because any time somebody highlights the purely correlative nature of your evidence, you get all up in arms (no pun intended).
I think this is about it for us here Dan. Time and time again its the same old song and dance routine. You post flawed studies, others pick them apart, you hand-wave about how statistical data from such biased sources as the FBI and Home Office are "NRA talking points" and we go around in circles.
Peace out, Dan.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why don't you actually come out and state the flaw, so we can address it? I love how the NRA people are always talking about "flaws" in the peer reviewed studies, but never name them.
PS. I'm still waiting for any plausible explanation as to why all these studies keep finding a link between guns and homicide. Simply saying "correlation is not causation" is not an answer. Particularly when these studies go to lengths to control for possible sources of reverse correlation or confounding. What you are doing is simply repeating catchphrases but avoiding the substance of the argument.
If you were right, and it were all about "root causes" and had nothing to do with guns, then we wouldn't find this pattern that areas with more guns have higher homicide rates.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)If proposed gun control was to say, remove all the more lethal guns from society and law enforcement, wouldn't that "begin to address the violent crime and homicide rates in general"?
With 30,000 deaths associated with guns, I sure think it would.
Don't worry, your personal liberty won't be restricted all that much, maybe practicing your chosen hobbies will just be a little inconvenienced. And the benefits we all share will be real.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The number of gun related homicides is around 9,000. And no, I find it unlikely that the currently proposed AWB will have any impact on that number whatsoever. Nor even on the number of total deaths associated with guns. So no, the benefits we all share will actually be completely imagined.
And the AWB goes far beyond "inconvenience."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)I agree, we would need to greatly expand the proposed AWB to have it become more effective, and not just annoying.
"Substantially reduce the number of guns" would be the goal.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Not only fail to reduce the number of guns, but also expend political capital on a failed attempt to address what is, at best, a symptom of a much larger problem, hindering our ability to address those other root issues of the problem. Congrats, I hope you're proud.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)not agree that severly reducing the number of guns will substantially reduce the levels of gun related deaths?
Proud? It's actually embarassing, to realize that so many gun owners are so selfish and scared that all they care about is themselves and their perceived needs & wants concerning guns. No matter how you try to justify it, your selfish notions about guns aren't worth the costs.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I too, often used to call comedy sketches idiotic merely because they are directed against one of my sacred cows, and then try to rationalize it by minimizing the progressive values of others once it became obvious to all that's what I was doing...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)do tell...
liberal N proud
(60,339 posts)I loved how on Fire he was last night.
allan01
(1,950 posts)replaceing reason with fear and stupidity.