palerider01
Junior Member
Fancy artwork. Who published those? Dates and times? Where'd the data come from?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Anything goes thread
- Thread starter -JD-
- Start date
- Status
Gunslinger-13
New member
"More Guns = More Gun Homicides, Statistically Speaking
In 2008, we explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What we found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship.
As Sorenson explained, scientists can’t conduct a random experiment. So, instead, researchers are left with statistical models, which are “very fragile,” says Charles F. Wellford, who was chair of the committees that authored a lengthy 2004 report on this topic by the National Research Council of the National Academies. These models are subject to what control variables researchers use. “Everyone knows there’s other things than guns that cause crime,” says Wellford, a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland. So these models become very complex and slight changes can cause very different results, he says.
The National Research Council review of the available research on guns and crime found that studies comparing similar geographic areas, such as urban areas to urban areas, known as “case-control studies,” showed that “violence is positively associated with firearms ownership.” But when looking at larger areas, such as countries, the National Research Council report found “contradictory evidence.” Both types of studies, said the report, failed to address factors involved in buying a gun — it’s not a random decision. And gun ownership data itself is lacking — it comes only from public opinion surveys.
Eighteen experts participated in the NRC report, including those in criminology, sociology, psychology, economics, public health and statistics. The NRC’s conclusion: “In summary, the committee concludes that existing research studies and data include a wealth of descriptive information on homicide, suicide, and firearms, but, because of the limitations of existing data and methods, do not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide.”
Wellford says the new literature that has emerged since that 2004 review “doesn’t change in any way the conclusions from our report.”
Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns. Adam Lanza, the shooter in the elementary school killings in Newtown, “had lots of things going on in his life and one of them was access to multiple weapons,” says Wellford, himself a gun owner. “It’s hard to parse out what the effect is of having the gun, but there’s no question there’s some effect.” But is it 2 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent of the causal model? “We don’t know.”
Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, says he would “bet a lot of money” that the prevalence of guns increases homicide, all other things being equal. “I think the evidence is very consistent with the notion that more guns have made us less safe.” But it’s “almost impossible” to prove a causal relationship. “All the data are consistent with a causal relationship, but it’s very hard to say anything is causal,” he says.
Hemenway and coauthor Lisa M. Hepburn reviewed research from peer-reviewed journals and found that the evidence from studies of U.S. cities, states and regions “is quite consistent … where there are higher levels of gun prevalence, homicide rates are substantially higher, primarily due to higher firearm homicide rates.” But, again, the 2004 report said: “None of the studies can prove causation. They merely examine the statistical association between gun availability and homicide.”
There’s also a chicken-and-egg question when it comes to gun violence. Did the violence come first, and then the guns followed, or the other way around?
“I don’t think any of us believe the arrow points in one direction,” says Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis and an emergency room doctor. It’s “probably true that rising crime leads to a perception of increased threat and, therefore, an increase in the prevalence of gun ownership.” And it’s “also the case that making firearms more available is followed by an increase in firearm crime.”
An International Comparison
The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world — by far. And it has the highest rate of homicides with guns among advanced countries. But, again, those are statistics and not demonstrative of a causal relationship.
The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in its report that studies comparing large geographic areas, what it called “ecological studies,” didn’t show a distinct trend, and instead “provide[d] contradictory evidence on violence and firearms.”
One problem in comparing various countries is the wealth of other factors, besides the mere presence of guns, that can affect whether a homicide occurs, such as the economy, general crime rates, and laws governing guns. Another issue is that the data isn’t all that great. Gun ownership numbers are largely based on public opinion surveys, and the reliability of numbers can vary widely from country to country. “We don’t have good data on the prevalence of ownership on all the countries we’d want to have it on,” says Wintemute.
The numbers in the chart above are from the Small Arms Survey. The project gives high and low estimates, along with an average. We used the average numbers. They show the U.S. with 88.8 guns for every 100 people. That’s No. 1 in the gun ownership rate in the world. Switzerland, with 45.7 guns per 100 people, is No. 3 in the world, with nearly half the rate of the U.S. Switzerland also requires military service. (Yemen is No. 2, with 54.8 guns per 100 people.)
Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center School, told the Washington Post that “Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns,” and moving away from having those in the army keep guns at home.
The Small Arms Survey acknowledges that its numbers are approximations and making these estimates is far from an exact science. In addition to surveys, it relies on gun registration, experts, other indicators such as firearm suicides, and comparisons to similar countries. It says: “All gun numbers—even those that seem most accurate—approximate reality or reveal only part of it. They should be used with caution.”
The firearms homicide rate, and homicide rate overall, is also higher in the U.S. than other advanced countries, such as Canada, Australia and those in Europe, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.2 per every 100,000 people in 2010, according to UNODC figures. The UNODC measures “intentional homicide,” which is “an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.”
The international data show that country-to-country comparisons are inherently difficult to make — and, as the NRC said, provide “contradictory evidence.” For instance, Latin American countries with high levels of firearm homicide show low levels of gun ownership. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 68.43 per 100,000 people, and Colombia has a gun rate of 5.9 and firearm homicide rate of 27.09, as shown in this chart produced by the Washington Post using the same data we have cited here.
But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.”
Says Wintemute: “The difference is that in this country violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome.”
Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts
Gun Laws Matter 2012: Understanding the Link Between Weak Laws and Gun Violence | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Thank you. Now let's discuss.
"Gun deaths" aren't always a bad thing. For instance if a woman shoots and kills an intruder who meant to rape and kill her that's a good gun death.
So, yeah it's fairly obvious that with more guns you're going to have more gun deaths, but a lot of them are SELF DEFENSE related.
That's why the data I produced extrapolates those data points- because it matters to the discussion.
Like I said, Florida is gonna have more pool related drownings than Alaska and California is going to have more shark related deaths than Colorado.
Places where people have more guns they are going to be used more. That's why we have to extrapolate the difference in how they are used and why it is so important to note the 80 fold use of guns in self defense versus in crime.
That's why we have to look at overall violent crime statistics when looking at the raw data.
That's regularly over looked by Antigun media and proponents of gun control.
Does that make sense?
So look at the data without it being sifted to get the end result wanted. Look at all factors. Not just one.
-JD-
New member
Thats exactly what the dataset I posted did.
I certainly trust it to be less biased than a site dedicated to promoting gun rights, or a guy who's screen name is based around guns.
If you read the conclusions they say what I've been saying for awhile. There is an intentional lack of data on this issue, making it hard to prove causation conclusively either way. But as they say there is certainly a statistical correlation between more guns and more gun homicides.
Trying to accurately assess defensive gun uses is an even harder thing to try to quantify.
Gunslinger-13
New member
I get it, you're anti-gun so you're going to trust an anti-gun website more than a pro gun person or web site, Earth is also an oblate spheroid- not a big surprise.
The problem with that is the data is what the data is. Just because I am pro gun and just because the web sites who compiled the data happen to be pro gun doesn't change the data itself!
The links I'm posting provide TONS of information and data from a broad range of sources that have been peer reviewed and the data is presented in tons of different fashions.
Extrapolations have been made to show defensive shootings versus criminal shootings versus accidents, versus suicides, etc.
I've posted raw data from every side of the equation here, if you can't take the data for what it is because of my screen name then we have nothing left to debate, you don't want to take the time to read the studies and come to your own conclusions.
You posted a single link to an anti-gun website that makes a very weak argument based on some of the same data I have linked to.
If they showed the whole picture of what TYPES of deaths these "Gun deaths" were we would have better info to review and could come to a better conclusion. They even state that they "can't make a strong correlation, but it is there". Super scientific stuff.
There is ZERO correlation of controlling guns or banning them changing violent crime or suicide for the better. ZERO.
The way that article even has to dodge those items and instead use the soft "gun deaths" instead of getting down to what types of deaths, decreases of overall violent crime/suicide versus just decreasing gun deaths- should make you question why and find out more. By reading the raw data. I've posted it ad nauseum.
Just like in England, gun deaths aren't high, but the percentage of gun deaths compared to the amount of guns is astronomical compared to America. Should be another clue for you.
"GUN DEATHS" is pretty vague. It doesn't extrapolate police shootings, self defense, accidents, suicide, gang related, et al- so it is NOT painting a fell picture we can put into focus. Again, where people are allowed to conceal carry and defend themselves with guns, you are going to have more gun deaths- that is not automatically a NEGATIVE thing and simply saying- oh there are more gun deaths, must be bad isn't genuine or reality based- especially given the vast majority of incidences with guns are self defense related in this country. It's right there in the data for yo to see.
Last edited:
-JD-
New member
Not only did my sources try to address all the variables in a more fair way, but if you check the sources of your material you will see that they also mention those specific sources. That pro-gun website, as you might expect, seems to take the most extreme sources of all the available info. As my source points out there is a huge variance if you consider all of the available info, not just the most extreme sources that suit your pre determined position.
The majority of the seemingly less biased sources I've read seem to arrive at a similar conclusion. There has been a concerted effort by organizations like the NRA to prevent funding of any studies that could be in any way related to gun control. This, combined with the inconsistencies and variability of reporting, has led to a shortage of meaningful data from which to draw a conclusion.
The majority of the seemingly less biased sources I've read seem to arrive at a similar conclusion. There has been a concerted effort by organizations like the NRA to prevent funding of any studies that could be in any way related to gun control. This, combined with the inconsistencies and variability of reporting, has led to a shortage of meaningful data from which to draw a conclusion.
wallytoo
Member
why bother engaging with the op? clearly, you won't sway his opinion in any way, nor will you get any satisfaction in having enlightened him about your opinions and positions on various topics. all you'll get is the condescending smugness of a know-it-all who discounts any differing opinion and will not see the world through anything but polarized lenses.
ndcent
New member
Reading this made more sense when I thought you were quoting JD.
palerider01
Junior Member
If you don't like guns don't buy guns. Don't take away my right because you're afraid of guns. Gun control is about government control.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
palerider01
Junior Member
Rules of the 18th century? Explain
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hepar
New member
It just makes me laugh at how strongly people hold onto things from over 200 years ago. That people can argue the unchanging ideas and principles behind something who's very definition opposes that. Or who are so sure what people meant when writing those words as if they were standing in the room with them.
There isn't one Amendment that doesn't have it's restrictions or regulations as time has advanced. Walk into a Police Station and yell "Bomb!" See where that gets you.
And yes, I write this knowing I'll get butchered and labeled a libtard or whatever other word(s) people want to use. Or that I'm saying I want to restrict all guns or take them all away, even though I've never said anything to the sorts.
I'm just someone who prefers to find ways to try and walk ashore as the tide comes in as opposed to standing with my feet in the sand.
palerider01
Junior Member
So what are you saying? You're dancing around the issue without giving a clear cut stance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thefishguy77
New member
There are many amendments that haven't been modified. I will not call you names but merely start out in the first 15 amendments
3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 14th, & 15th amendments remain fully in place to my knowledge. They may not be followed but if you peaceful and have your day in court you usually prevail if one of your rights has been violated.
But to throw the argument out there that technology and silence today don't apply to the 200+ year old amendments is a dangerous slope. By that means the government (state, city, county, federal) can force you to turn over any documents you have written that would no longer be protected under the freedom of speech. That includes your computer, cell phone, pencils, pens, typewriter, did you use modern paper?, the list is almost endless. So unless you said it with your voice used a wooden typeset printing press, or ink and quill you have no freedom of speech. Now let's transfer that over to the media as well. See where this argument goes? Firearms are about the least untouched item out there and Hell I can have cannons sitting in my front yard with explosive cannon balls. Think modern day mortars without the accuracy. Is that really safer than modern firearms? That also gives them the ability to go and modify the slavery, voting, and birth citizenship amendments.
To be willing to water down 1 amendment because of a personal distaste for it opens all the others up for the same. Now if say we have a democratic congress and president and they decide to ban the 2 amendment and take control of who is allowed to buy firearms. What's to stop the next republican president and congress from taking a drastic similar action of say legalizing all forms of firearms and weapons period. Full automatics, bombs, mortars, military attack helicopters with a full armament. Yes you can get fully automatic firearms and some military weapons in some states. But if you understood the process and costs involved with procuring these items you would not think them the same threat the press makes them out to be today. The scary Barrett .50 BMG sniper rifle. Your looking at a minimum of $5,000 for the rifle, $5,000 for the scope, $10 a round to shoot it. It's not like you are an instant expert with it either. It will take 1,000's of rounds with expert instruction to begging to master that system. And those are entry level $ numbers by the way. So let's say $10,000 to just purchase the weapon system.
Fully automatic machine guns. Look them up on gunbroker.com. $10,000-$15,000 is an average starting price. Then the federal tax stamp and a usually very long waiting period. 90 days minimum right not closer to a year. Then the ammo to feed them is let's say $0.30 a round. That $9 a 30 round magazine. Go out and say shoot for an hour fire 11 magazines. That's $100 an hour. And that's a fairly slow rate of fire for a fully automatic rifle. And a low cost per round.
The Mexican drug cartels coming over our open southern border are using these weapon to escort their drugs in to our country. So that also mean they can bring these same weapons to sell to criminals in to our country. Putting more restrictions on law abiding citizens will do nothing to stem the flow of weapons and crime in our nation. All it will do is disarm law abiding citizens and make felons out of citizens that see this as a direct infringement on their constitutional rights.
Justice Sandra Day O'Conner used the 10th amendment to protect New York from a federal congress decision. This decision by Justice O'Conner is simple and well written in stating that the congress can not force the states to do something that is in violation of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...ave-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/
I hope this helps clear up the counter argument to more restrictions on any amendment.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thefishguy77
New member
So let's apply Chicago gun laws to Missouri. Missouri currently does not require a permit to conceal carry a firearm. So since Chicago does and if this Chicago law was enforced in Missouri every citizen that used the Missouri law of not needing a permit would now be in direct violation of the Chicago law. There are no examples to cite as Chicago laws apply to Chicago and Missouri laws apply to Missouri.
Did I give clear enough example of how forcing another states laws on a state could and would create contradictions in laws and therefore force citizens of the state that just had new laws forced upon then to conform of become felons? After all we were set up as 50 separate states bound together for commerce and national security. Free to make our own laws regarding governing of our states as long as they were in compliance with the Constitution of the United States of America.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yukon4Runner
New member
You're right...the US constitution should be redefined every week.
Treat it like a letterman top ten list. The top ten with the most "likes" stay and the rest are thrown out.
That would be amazing!
Hepar
New member
I'm sorry, but I disagree that any of those Amendments aren't without their own limits and restrictions.
There Are No ?Absolute? Rights - The Daily Beast
No, if you were to change the conceal permit laws to match Chigaco in Missouri, anyone who decided not to follow that change in law is then being criminalized. Arguing that because something was legal at one point, but not currently criminalizes someone is a silly argument.
Hepar
New member
Again, you're reading what you want into what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they don't apply today. What I'm saying is that there is a very good reason we were founded on the idea of a Living Constitution with the ability to amend it as times change.
Hepar
New member
Yes. That is exactly what I mean. Good on you.
Thefishguy77
New member
There are only 2 ways to an end the constitution. Can you please explain what way the current gun control laws being proposed by the democratic presidential candidate Hilary would use by making people go through a psyc eval. Even after she stated she would use executive action if needed. Same as Obama did to change the gun trust laws. Here is a link to the only 2 legal ways the constitution may be amended
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hepar
New member
- Status
