The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 4261 - 4280 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:56pm PT
I'd venture they are more objective than many posters on this thread.

I would agree. And I would count myself in your camp. I try to be careful and not make claims (or decisions, for that matter) on the basis of pre-theoretical intuitions or "feelings."

Of course, being human, we all stumble now and then. :-)
skcreidc

Social climber
SD, CA
Jul 10, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
Just take a deep breath to clear your head and relax. THen look up the before and after in Austraila and their efforts on gun control. And btw, they still have guns in the hands of pivate owners...
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:10pm PT
Hmm, madbolter I didn't notice the graphs axis was skewed. So probably CA's rate is now very close to the US rate, not significantly below it.

But Scott's graph isn't so innocent either. Notice how it lumps all states together (including ones that have enacted gun control laws) with states that have allowed open carry. It would be interesting to see that data split out between those two types of states and see where the greater reductions happened.

"Objectivity?" Well, none of us HAVE it! We can only keep trying. And having one's viewed challenged on a thread like this is always healthy... for ALL of us!

Count me in!

Agreed. And you have done a good job at keeping me challenged and focused on the real issues in this debate. I guess these threads really can be good for something!
A5scott

Trad climber
Chicago
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:15pm PT
thanks MB!

The vast majority of conceal/open carry advocates are like mad bolter, that is to say benign... therefore the discussion is about his type. they are the ones we don't need to think about, as Texas shows us out of 65,000 convictions, 120 are CCW holders. 1 of those convictions was murder. one.
there were 395 murders by non CCW holders though in 2012, texas

George Z, who was found not guilty, is the statistical outlier case of somebody that should have let the police figure things out and he should have bugged out. I wasn't there. none of us were

that movie theater cell phone argument guy that killed someone was a retired police officer.

where are the other incidents involving CCW holders?

according to the violence policy center, a very anti gun group, so we know they are trying to count every death they can, just about 60 CCW holders a year commit murder. They call them conceal carry killers. That's out of more than 11 million CCW holders. 60 out of 11 million.


scott
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
BTW, kind of off topic, but I recently visited the 700 foot high Foresthill-Auburn bridge in Auburn, CA. I haven't been there for years since they did some major retrofit work on it.

For suicide prevention they raised the railings from about 4 feet high to about 6 feet high. And they installed suicide prevention hotline call-boxes on both ends of the bridge and one in the middle.

To me it seems like:
 Laws banning suicide do nothing. If someone is going to kill themselves are they worried about breaking a law?
 The railings do almost nothing. Someone won't climb 2 feet higher? I guess it may help with spurt of the moment poor decisions. But I'd think most people plan their suicide. They just don't end up on a high bridge and decide to end it all
 The hotlines probably are effective. Looking at the sheer terror of jumping vs. a call box I'd think the call box would be a tempting option

Just kind of related because there are different ways to deal with things and it's interesting what may actually work.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
I'm glad to hear they've eliminated suicide. We won't have to worry about that ever again.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:25pm PT

Hello MadBolter,

I was wrong, it USED to be Alaska but the latest statistics show that Louisiana tops the list of per capita firearm deaths while having some of the, if not the, loosest gun laws.

And yes, it does appear that the opposite is also true: The states with the toughest gun laws have the least firearm deaths per capita

you asked me to provide a link, here you go

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/gun_violence_louisiana_deaths.html


by the way, you can confirm these very clear causal correlations from other sources should you find a couple of minutes time to do so yourself
A5scott

Trad climber
Chicago
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
in 2010 alaska had 19 murders with a gun, and 31 total murders.... fewer than 1 million pop.

in 2010 Mass had 118 gun murders and 209 total murders.... pop. about 6.5 million


Alaska is kind of the drunk and suicide capital of the US. I may be wrong about alaska being the capital, but they do drink a bunch and tend towards depression.

scott
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
I don't have a problem with CCW permits. If someone takes training and passes a background test no problem. If I lived or worked in a dangerous area I'd get one.

I do have a problem with people saying having more guns around in general leads to more safety.

The closest I've come to a violent situation on the last 20 years was at two Oakland Raiders games. At one a fight broke out next to me and my kid, and at the other a fight almost broke out next to me and my two kids. (note to self: stop going to raiders games). I'm 100% glad that there is a metal detector and there weren't private people carrying guns. If bullets went flying someone probably would have been shot. As it was I felt reasonably confident that with my self defense skills that if they fight worked it's way over to me I could defend myself and my family. If they had guns there would have been nothing I could do.

Basically anywhere that it makes economic sense to install metal detectors (court rooms, airports, etc.) and keeps guns out I'm glad I don't have to worry about them.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
Just take a deep breath to clear your head and relax. THen look up the before and after in Austraila and their efforts on gun control. And btw, they still have guns in the hands of pivate owners...

Okay, I'll take a deep breath, as you should, and let's look at the facts.

Sweeping gun control passed in 1996.... Is FactCheck objective enough for you?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Alrighty then....

Which line to you want to look at since 1996? The 1999 line, where the number went from 354 to 385? Why NOT that one?

Okay, how about 2002, where the number is STILL higher than in 1997? (And that line belies the article's false claim: "The number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007.")

Ohhh... you're one of those "trends" guys, and "clearly" the "trend" is heading downward! Ohhh, right!

The problem with "trends" is focusing on "just the right" time-slice in which you GET the "trend" you are looking for. And from 2002 to 2007 you DO see a "marked decline" (to quote the obviously biased author of this piece) in homicides! Wow... just LOOK at it! Down from well over 350 to 282, a drop of... uhh... 68, which is a drop of 19.4%. SCORE! Gun control works!

But wait.

What happened from 2004 through 2006? Homicides went UP during that period, and "significantly" relative to other parts of the chart. Oh, that's NOT a good time slice to consider what the "trend" really is. Right?

Well, WHY should we think that ANY "trend" we are seeing in such a limited time-slice as the ENTIRE chart is really showing anything of significance?

Ohhh... because, as the article says, "In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007."

That is CLEARLY a "trend." Right?

Well, okay, so what is the difference from 24% to 11% of the drop of 68 homicides a given year? (Pick a year, since the article isn't clear on what particular year would be THE relevant one.) Let's say from 2006 to 2007.

So, let's make things as bad for "my side" of the argument as possible. Let's say that guns caused 24% of the homicides in 2006 and only 11% in 2007. That means in 2006, there were about 300 killings, of which 72 were caused by a gun. Now, in 2007, there were 282 killings, of which 31 were caused by a gun. Wow! That's a reduction in gun-related homicides of better than 50%! Goodness gracious! Gun control DOES work!

Here's the funny part. This article itself quotes Snopes, as it should be quoting Snopes right back at itself (but doesn't): "The claims [statistical analysis claiming that gun control WASN'T working] about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a 'small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics' signifying little."

Laughably, ALL of what we see in this article SHOULD fall to the same claim Snopes made about other articles.

Sorry, I don't buy any of it. ALL of these time slices are very, very short in sociological terms, and you already see significant fluctuations in the figures, even in such short periods.

If we, for example, ran my same analysis from 2005 to 2006, instead of from 2006 to 2007, you would get very different results! Why not choose that time slice?

The problem with all time-slice analysis is that you can get whatever you want by zooming in and out. The jury is still out in Australia, if you are going to be truly CAREFUL in your analysis and not just jump on whatever article INTERPRETS the figures as you see fit.

Another HUGE factor not taken into consideration by this (or any other article I've seen about Australian gun control) is that Australia bears little sociological relation to the US. Surrounded by a HUGE water border, Australia has a virtually non-existent gang problem compared to the US. The society is MUCH more monolithic than the US society, and the socioeconomic ranges are much tighter. And I'm just scratching the surface of the many and very significant sociological differences.

(These differences also apply to the TINY socialist-democratic countries in Europe that are often cited as "models" of how the US should be and what laws we should pass! Most of our STATES are bigger and more sociologically diverse than most of the COUNTRIES of Europe!)

So, yeah, let's all take a deep breath and repeat after Mark Twain: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Repeat again.

Then tell me ALL about Australia.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:52pm PT

Thanks, Norton. But I'll take a chart produced by the US Census and FBI over a NOLA-produced chart based upon a study from: "'America Under the Gun,' a report by the left-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank," thank you very much!

Try this, as you steer away from "a left-leaning think tank," and look at what the FBI data say:

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

As predicted, we see that Washington DC leads by a mile (most gun-controlled region in the USA).

Yes, Louisiana is second. But then look at Maryland, a heavily gun-controlled state.

Notice most of all that after DC, the RATE of gun-related homicides all fall in a pretty tight range, falling slowly regardless of whether or not the particular state has strong or weak gun control.

In 2010, for example, Colorado had one of the lowest rates of gun-related homicide, and at that time it had about the laxest gun control in the country!

YOU simply can't get the figures to support the idea that lax gun control correlates with high gun-related homicide rates. But I CAN do exactly as I said and show that places like DC, Chicago, and California have the highest (or among the highest) gun-related homicide rates in the country, DESPITE their very stringent gun control.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 10, 2014 - 03:59pm PT
Maybe those figures have a lot to do with our handling of minority populations? Course, we all know racism and the effects thereof doesn't exist.

For the unimportant record, I'm not even against open carry by reasonably sane folks. This rifle toting as protest has got to run up there with rolling coal though.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
Course, we all know racism and the effects thereof doesn't exist.

Touche'

Without delving DEEPLY into socioeconomic issues, serious discussion of gun-related violence is a non-starter.

This rifle toting as protest has got to run up there with rolling coal though.

Agreed.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:03pm PT
As mentioned previously there are too many other factors between states (or countries) to take a snapshot and get any useful data.

One thing that could produce some insight is to compare the gun murder rate over the last say 20 years and compare what has happened in states that have enacted gun control, v.s states that have loosened gun regulations.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
If you don't mess with me in deadly fashion, then you already HAVE parity with ME whether or not you are armed! My being armed is IRRELEVANT to you, IF you are a decent human being!

So you're saying that the well being of my family is solely at the discretion of your clearly impaired ability to determine if we are "decent human beings?" Pardon me if I'm not put at ease.


StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
Credit: StahlBro

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
So you're saying that the well being of my family is solely at the discretion of your clearly impaired ability to determine if we are "decent human beings?" Pardon me if I'm not put at ease.

If that is how you interpret my statement, then I think that you are the one that's impaired, perhaps at this very moment. Drinking a bit now, are we?

LOL
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:09pm PT

List of US States comparing Firearm Laws and Firearm Deaths, per capita

again, the correlation is clear: the states with the loosest gun laws have the most deaths
while the states with the toughest gun laws have the fewer deaths, per capita

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

again, I have now presented studies (plural) and links that clearly refute the notion that laws
"don't work" to mitigate firearm deaths
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
"deaths" is a weasel-word, Norton.

You're including suicide and people who rightfully needed to be shot in a discussion about violence.

HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jul 10, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
madbolter posted
As predicted, we see that Washington DC leads by a mile (most gun-controlled region in the USA).

And as anyone who understands statistics knows, correlation = causation!


madbolter responded
If that is how you interpret my statement, then I think that you are the one that's impaired, perhaps at this very moment.

You said it pretty clearly. Don't think there's a whole lot of reading between the lines there.
Messages 4261 - 4280 of total 5484 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews