http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_crime_index_960grid.html

http://www.mshp.dps.missouri.gov/MSHPWeb/SAC/crime_data_violent_crime_960grid.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/mocrimn.htm

by the official state statistics, thanks.

Year M MAs
2008 474 426
2009 402 440
2010 435 211
2011 385 329
2012 390 299

M = Murders
MA = Murder Arrests

Since there has been a substantial drop in murders from 474 to 390 over the course of the study I can't help but note that the article terms its statistical analysis as "homicides" wheres as Missouri is noting "Murders."

However, even if you shoot someone in self-defense it is still listed as a homicide, albeit a justifiable homicide. If there were an up-tick self-defense shootings might that skew the results of the study. The CDC reporting by cause of death reporting (i.e. gunshot wound) would reinforce this suspicion.

Lacking further clarity, the study seems suspect.

without an actual study to reference

Since you seem to have nothing to say

2008 5,878,415
2012 6,024,522

Population went up and I wonder why they only picked those years. I would like to see a broader trend. The Bloomberg people are known to cherry pick numbers.

I'm interested in the gungeon's take.

BTW rate increase was based on number per 100,000, so population growth is moot.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

to actually be released. I would like to see what they reference and how the come up with the numbers and would like to see more data from earlier years before I make any more statements. Right now we have a press release of a study put together by a Bloomberg organization. He does have an agenda so I would like to see it peer reviewed.

the correct name is....Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The crime data has been posted and the stats are lowering so I am curious on how the come to their conclusion.

We all think what you have to say is important. That is why we do not ban people from posting in this group. It just gets kind of old that some post just thinking they will stir up crap and when that does not happen I assume they are disappointed. So far I have not seen anything posted like you were expecting.

Which I never use and I doubt anyone else does either, but still, it's a time honored Prohi tactic.

https://www.google.com/search?q=NRA+talking+points&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

Adhominem is poor form regardless. Its about attacking the argument, not the one arguing.

Go back through the archives and see all the idiocy from both sides. If we all just adhered to the rules of honest debate we would probably get along. Gungrabber vs gunhumper and 'it's Blomberg/NRA so I can ignore it doesn't make for productive discourse.

I believe everybody on this board would like to see a reduction in gun violence. The differences are in how to achieve that goal.

It seems you're fighting for the wrong side.

Ask the Prohibitionists who cite suicide statistics why they focus on the gun rather than the mental illness. They will tell you that a gun makes it easier to complete the suicide but they do nothing to resolve the suicidal ideations. Take away the mental illness and the gun becomes an inert piece of metal. Yet, it is the piece of metal the Prohibitionists have fixated upon with -- at best -- token lip service to treating mental illness.

Ask the Prohibitionists why they are so fixated on "assault weapons" when long gun deaths -- including both semi-auto AND single shot -- number less than 400 of ~28,000 firearm deaths per year.

Ask why most illegal gun offenses are perpetrated by repeat offenders and why those individuals are not the focus of more attention rather than people who intend to peaceably live their lives within their communities (which, by the way, would undercut one of the strongest pro-gun arguments: crime).

Ask why they constantly invoke "the children" when under-aged drinking claims the equivalent of 4 and a half Sandy Hook tragedies EVERY WEEK; that's more than 300 children lost to drinking for every child lost in Sandy Hook.

Ask why they vainly expend untold sums of political capital on useless solutions that cost them elections and incite party in-fighting when we could be working together for better health care, education and social programs to mitigate crime.



Is it really about saving as many lives as possible or is it about controlling people and satisfying ill-formed psychological needs?

Suicide: I think everyone, as evidenced by attempted funding of mental health care, is focused on mental health. That guns are so effective at facilitating suicide makes them part of the problem. My SIL attempted suicide by OTC drugs. He survived, got help and has moved on with his life. Had he used a gun . . .

Assault weapons: I actually agree with the gungeon on regulating by description. Legislation should be based on function and citing your numbers that would center on conceal ability. The logical conclusion would be to ban handguns. Not my choice, just handing your argument back to you.

Repeat offenders: There is a focus on criminals. Universal background checks, local law enforcement involvement in character assessment for ownership and harsh penalties on traffickers/straw buyers are evidence of that. Too bad the gun lobby is so successful.

Underage drinking: The reference to Sandy Hook is deceiving. Compare drinking to all under 18 gun deaths. Guns deaths for all ages will surpass auto deaths in the next few years, not because gun deaths are increasing but because auto safety regulations are saving lives. Gun deaths are pretty much flat. Maybe if gun owners were regulated a bit better both trends could show a decline.

Working together: I'm down with that and think reducing gun violence is part of that package. It is not an either/or all or nothing proposition. It is about saving lives, the disagreement is in how to go about it.

Look, there are a lot of proposals from people not well versed in guns and their use. Who better than gun enthusiasts and organizations like the NRA to facilitate truly useful methods of curtailing gun violence? Yet the only thing we get from the NRA is obstruction and from so many enthusiasts is denial that anything can be done. Regulations do work, never 100%, but they work. There are volumes of traffic laws and traffic control devices. Still people speed and run red lights. If we adopted the gungeon model and repealed all traffic laws and took down all the traffic control devices our morning commute would be interesting to say the least.

...methods of curtailing gun violence?" Agreed. So stop insulting us:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=141499

...stop insulting our intelligences by posting inaccurate headlines touting a shill study,
and most of all: Stop the cultural warfare- in case you hadn't noticed (or don't want
to admit it), your side is losing...

I've been nothing but civil to you. The study appears to be pretty well done as have a number of others which are all ignored here.

Question for ya. If there are three groups in a study, one has a pool with no safety regulations, one has a pool with strict safety requirements (fencing, self locking gates and audible alarms) and the third has no pool at all. Which group is most likely to have a drowning?

I mean this new OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12626166

First, you complain that nobody has replied to your question. Do you realize that only one member, friendly_iconoclast, is likely to even read it?

Since many are blocked from that group and can't engage in a discussion, why don't you post a new OP in this forum, which in a most progressive manner allows comment by anyone but one lone member.

I'll go first.

A group without a pool is least likely to have a drowning, a pool with strict safety requirements would have the fewest.

Do you really think that any significant number here wouldn't answer the same way?

Have you not read post after post begging for mandatory safety training in schools, for gun and ammo purchasers, etc.?

I don't know of a single poster on DU who would be against safety training, requiring the use of safe storage, and severe penalties for those who try to evade the rules, provided the rules are rational.

from your post....

I

Of course the group with no pool will have the least. Since there are numerous state and federal regulations on guns and ammo the group with no regulations will not fit. Everybody agree on sensible regulations. Lastly a pool has not been declared a right under the 2nd amendment as far as I know.

It is called "BANSALOT" for a very simple reason......

Blocked Members
Number Blocked members
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Ranchemp.
25 Lurks Often
26 proudretiredvet
27 ileus
28 Recursion
29 SQUEE
30 MO_Moderate
31 S_B_Jackson
32 DRAEGER
33 HALO141
34 Jgarrick

Compare that to this group that has two and one has just self banned from DU entirely. That may be the reason you get no traffic on your post over there.

Nobody answered the question buried in a subthread, so the go make a new post in the closed group, when all they need to do is post a new one here.

Just bizarre.

That is NOT the gungeon model! That's the accusation, the meme, the insulting broadbrushing that is applied to DU members who post in this group.

But it's just not supported by reality. You'd have to name names or find links to indicate that sentiment.

I've never seen it, never. Nobody here wants to repeal all gun laws and gun safety devices.

Since you lot like to claim that some or part of the decrease is due to improved
emergency medicine, I've also inluded the rates of aggravated assault (the crime category
that nonfatal criminal shootings belong in):

2008 rates:

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html

2012 rates:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

Besides,the FBI numbers raw nor corrected for poverty, law enforcement or any of the other factors affecting murder rate. The methodology seems to be quite sound. Variables were corrected as much as possible to narrow the results to only the repeal of the law.

There appears, at first glance, to be quite a spike immediately after repeal while the national rate declined as did neighboring states.

Last edited Sun Mar 30, 2014, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

...between 2008 and 2102 when it actually went down. From page 2 of the abstract:

Aside from that, there's no assertion in the cited paper that the FBI methodolgy for
the definition or reporting of murders is faulty

The murder rate went up. Comparing 08 to 12 in meaningless, as both dates are AFTER the repeal.

The authors claim that the murder rate in Missouri rose after the repeal and stayed elevated

Read it again (from page 9):

How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that the Missouri murder rate in 2007 was
the same as 2012, 6.5 per 100,000 inhabitants? And the rate of aggravated assault declined
from 347.3/100K in 2007 to 323.4/100K?

Don't take my word for it, check it out for yourself:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/4tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_4_crime_in_the_united_states_by_region_geographic_division_and_state_2011-2012.xls

For other factors such as law enforcement levels, national trends, neighboring states and poverty/other factors. Raw numbers mean nothing without context.

While the number of murders decreased. The report is using a lot of fudge data to say the decrease in MO is not as fast as the decrease seen in the national trend. Yet, the national trend is an average of all states. An average will mean some states are above and others are below. Picking a state below the average then showing its variance between the trend line and its own stats is NOT an increase. Its nothing more than a measure of the variance.

Do any of the states seeing higher than the national average decrease in levels of murder also more liberal in respect to their gun laws? I'll wager we could find such a state or dozen.

This is nothing more than an effort to scare people out of good news.

neighboring states - that there was a larger gap between MO and other states after repeal. So the 'increase' in homicides referred to isn't an absolute rise, it's a 'rise' above where MO would have been had it followed the trajectory of comparison states...

local law enforcement ran the NICS check, and issued the PTP if the prospective purchaser passed? Or was there a 'judgement call' component on the part of local LE?

If the former, that sort of system generally is something I'd support, as a non-intrusive way to approach UBCs...

or if the data is released in peer review and is verified and published in a criminology journal, I seriously doubt the value of the study. A lot of studies that "tie x to y" show up only to find that one does not cause the other.
Here is a slight diversion: Is it possible to support a law while detesting the people who lobbied for it and why? The purchase permit law was passed in 1921. North Carolina passed theirs in 1919. Michigan passed theirs in 1925 after the Sweet trials, which was supported by the KKK. I'm sure the rest were as well.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/09/adam-winkler-gun-fight-author-on-gun-control-s-racism.html

What I find interesting is that the NRA may have supported the restrictive carry laws that became popular in the 1920s.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/when-the-nra-promoted-gun_b_992043.html
Of course the NRA of that era were elitist trophy hunters, and the NRA of today are bat shit crazy ideologues. So, I'm not a fan of the NRA leadership then or now. To say that I detest the Klan would be an understatement.

farm boy turned soldier was so abismal. It was originally a patriotic organization for training shooting skills and safety.

As you said, it is now a bunch of batshit crazy money grubbing fear mongers.

The reason I posted this here was to find out how many ways gungeoneers could find to ignore what appears to be a well documented and honest study. So far I have ad honeniem, denial, and apples vs orange comparisons. Plus there is the commenting on an srticle some clearly haven't read.

because of the urban draftees couldn't shoot very well. I though the other gundeoneers did a pretty good job in showing some of the obvious flaws.

and it being a study funded by Joyce Foundation and Bloomberg, which is kind of like a climate change study funded by the Kochs.

Those are raw numbers, nor corrected for all the factors cited in the study.

Do you deny that making it easier to buy guns without any enforcement intervention makes it easier for criminals to get guns? If so please explain it to me.

I didn't see what model he used, nor did it say what number values were assigned to those variables or why. That's important. Did they assign the same numbers to the other states. Those are important questions to ask.
If this guy is anything like Kellerman, he'll tell any criminologist who asks to pound sand. Like I said, a study isn't settled science. It is just a study that means nothing until:
published in a peer reviewed criminology journal, that means he will have to release his data.
a criminologist can replicate his study and get the same results. And even then, maybe not.
I didn't see any references to work in criminology, why? Public health gun studies don't have a good reputation among criminologists. For one thing, they tend to present assumptions as fact, as sociologist David Bordua noted "assumptions are presented as fact: that there is a causal association between gun ownership and the risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence." and that "incestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce an artificial bias into scientific publications. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled." So, of course I'm skeptical.

Depends if this enforcement intervention is aimed at where criminals get their guns. If it is aimed at where you and I get our guns, (which is how gun laws generally work) then no. We do know from the Wright/Rossi/Daly study that few criminals got their guns from FFLs and almost none from gun shows. While UBC is a good thing in principle, it didn't do anything for that reason. Most of them got them from fences, drug dealers, "the street" etc. These are not the kind of people who care about background checks or anything else. They certainly are not going to ask for a PTP. Guns enter the black market largely through theft, which is why the average crime gun is about 11-12 years since anyone filled out a 4473 for it. They still have Ravens, Jennings', and the occasional Clerke in some places. That part of why I'm bigger on safe storage than UBC (the other part is curious toddlers and distraught teenagers).
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303063


http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/columbiatribune.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/24/1248fd0a-a108-11e3-beea-001a4bcf6878/531179a2f22e9.pdf.pdf

of "murder" and the more encompassing "homicide" resonate with the shift from the FBI-defined "mass shooting" (4+ non-shooter victims in the same setting) to the far more swampy "active shooter incidents" so, presumably, the volume of shootings could be raised to more alarming levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

It came into being due to the poor shooting performance of Union soldiers.