Real gun law changes to be done?

[Genx87]

Before even considering real gun legislation, there should be a study that shows what types of weapons are used most in acts of murder and violence. What I am trying to say is that it does not do much good to ban assault weapons if most crimes are committed with pistols that fit in a pocket, etc.

Assault rifles typically make up less than 3% of weapons used in a crime. But because most idiots pushing gun bans dont know their ass from a hole in the ground. They go after assault rifles because they believe movies are real.

 

[Venix]

Before even considering real gun legislation, there should be a study that shows what types of weapons are used most in acts of murder and violence. What I am trying to say is that it does not do much good to ban assault weapons if most crimes are committed with pistols that fit in a pocket, etc.

The FBI tracks this information.

In 2013, the top murder weapons were handguns (5,782), then knives (1,490), then hands and feet (687), then blunt objects (428), then shotguns (308), and finally rifles (285). There are also ~2800 "weapon type not specified murders" that presumably would follow the same weapon trends. "Assault weapons" are some subset of rifle murders, but difficult to track because "assault weapon" is a nebulous political term rather than an actual class of firearm.

Mass shooting statistics are similar. Mass shootings are most commonly committed with handguns, and there is no correlation between weapon type and number of casualties. For example, only one of the four deadliest mass shootings in US history was committed with a rifle.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not only do they track it, but they will bring an escalated level of violence to your encounter, once they know you own a gun.

This is another reason why gun control is wrong. You get pulled over for speeding, they do a check and see you own eighteen guns, and they immediately go into felony stop mode.

One false step and "Pow! Right in the kisser."

-John

 

[rudeguy]

It honestly saddens me to see the democrats using another tragedy to try to force gun control through. Wasn't using the innocent children in Newton bad enough? Guess not because they are using another tragedy to try to control the population.

Last weekend 4 people were killed and 22 injured in gun violence in Chicago. That city has the strictest gun laws out there. Yet they still have a huge problem with gun violence. Why aren't the criminals following the law? Oh yea...criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.

Democrats got their gun control law with Clinton and it did nothing other than infringe on law abiding citizens' rights. Plenty of states and cities have enacted strict gun control laws and they have done nothing.

If anyone, democrat or republican has a plan that would actually make a difference and not just use innocent murder victims to advance their agenda, please post it.

 

[brycejones]

Without reading the whole thread.

No changes will come of this.

 

[fskimospy]

It honestly saddens me to see the democrats using another tragedy to try to force gun control through. Wasn't using the innocent children in Newton bad enough? Guess not because they are using another tragedy to try to control the population.

Last weekend 4 people were killed and 22 injured in gun violence in Chicago. That city has the strictest gun laws out there. Yet they still have a huge problem with gun violence. Why aren't the criminals following the law? Oh yea...criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.

Democrats got their gun control law with Clinton and it did nothing other than infringe on law abiding citizens' rights. Plenty of states and cities have enacted strict gun control laws and they have done nothing.

If anyone, democrat or republican has a plan that would actually make a difference and not just use innocent murder victims to advance their agenda, please post it.

http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-c...ecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf

 

[Venix]

http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-c...ecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf

This looks more like propaganda than a real study. "Synthetic Connecticut" is generated primarily from Rhode Island, which broke from national trends and suffered a brief increase in homicides from 1998 until the early-2000's. Connecticut continued to follow the national trend during that period.

The authors claim that because Connecticut and Rhode Island had similar homicide rate trends prior to the PTP law, any divergence at any time post-law must be because of the law. They conclude that Connecticut continued to follow the national trend only because of the PTP law; had the law not been passed, Connecticut would have suddenly diverged and followed Rhode Island. That seems rather difficult to believe.

Edit: Reason has also published a lengthy rebuttal, though I haven't evaluated all of their arguments in depth yet.

 

[fskimospy]

This looks more like propaganda than a real study. "Synthetic Connecticut" is generated primarily from Rhode Island, which broke from national trends and suffered a brief increase in homicides from 1998 until the early-2000's. Connecticut continued to follow the national trend during that period.

The authors claim that because Connecticut and Rhode Island had similar homicide rate trends prior to the PTP law, any divergence at any time post-law must be because of the law. They conclude that Connecticut continued to follow the national trend only because of the PTP law; had the law not been passed, Connecticut would have suddenly diverged and followed Rhode Island. That seems rather difficult to believe.

Edit: Reason has also published a lengthy rebuttal, though I haven't evaluated all of their arguments in depth yet.

How on earth is it propaganda? In real life you can't have a counterfactual, so they took an area with similar characteristics and compared the two. Makes pretty good sense to me. How would you have done it differently?

And reason.com? Really? That "rebuttal" was clearly not written by a researcher. In fact, the guy doesn't even seem to have any familiarity with academic literature. (something he seems to admit at the end) His complaints seem to be a mixture of not understanding what he's reading, not understanding research norms, and just flat out getting things wrong.

 

[Venix]

How on earth is it propaganda? In real life you can't have a counterfactual, so they took an area with similar characteristics and compared the two. Makes pretty good sense to me. How would you have done it differently?

And reason.com? Really? That "rebuttal" was clearly not written by a researcher. In fact, the guy doesn't even seem to have any familiarity with academic literature. (something he seems to admit at the end) His complaints seem to be a mixture of not understanding what he's reading, not understanding research norms, and just flat out getting things wrong.

I already explained why I'm skeptical of the study and its conclusions. It simply shows that Rhode Island suffered from a brief increase in homicide rate during a time when Connecticut and the rest of the country saw decreases. No competent evidence or argument is presented to explain why Connecticut would be expected to follow Rhode Island's deviation from the nationwide trend.

Also note that Rhode Island's homicide rate spike was temporary. From 2000 to 2011 it decreased from 2.58 to 1.14. Over the same period, Connecticut's increased from 1.79 to 2.67. The study conveniently ended in 2005, omitting the increase.

Your critique of Reason's article is pointless without examples. What does he get wrong? What does he not understand? In any case, John Lott is a researcher who came to the same conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

I already explained why I'm skeptical of the study and its conclusions. It simply shows is that Rhode Island suffered from a brief increase in homicide rate during a time when Connecticut and the rest of the country saw decreases. No competent evidence or argument is presented to explain why Connecticut would be expected to follow Rhode Island's deviation from the nationwide trend.

Because the two areas selected shared a large amount of common attributes. That's the whole point of making a comparison area.

Your critique of Reason's article is pointless without examples. What does he get wrong? What does he not understand? In any case, John Lott is a researcher who came to the same conclusions.

Point 1.) He says the study assumes there are no uncontrolled confounding variables as if that's a problem. No shit. Every study ever written makes that assumption. As for the other areas not being an effective comparison that's possible, but he provides no actual reason to believe it other than that its homicide rate stayed high, which is not a good argument.

Point 2.) He seems to implicitly accept that this complaint is pointless, but he still complains about enforcement data despite giving no plausible reason as to why this law would not be enforced.

Point 3.) Impossible to see what he's talking about as his linked copy of the study doesn't include the relevant figures.

Point 4.) He seems to have admitted this point was just totally wrong.

Point 5.) He seems to have later realized this point was wrong too.

John Lott is a professional gun rights activist with a long history of dubious, discredited pro-gun research. To say his opinion is not useful is an understatement.

 

[Venix]

Because the two areas selected shared a large amount of common attributes. That's the whole point of making a comparison area.

Nothing in the study supports the conclusion that Connecticut would have followed Rhode Island in deviating from the national trend had it not passed its PTP law.

Again, Rhode Island and Connecticut both roughly followed national homicide rate trends. In 1998--two years after Connecticut passed its law--Rhode Island deviated significantly and experienced increased homicide rates. Connecticut continued to follow the national trend.

This trend reversed in the mid-2000's, with Rhode Island's homicide rate decreasing from a high of 2.58 to 1.14, and Connecticut's increasing from a low of 1.61 to 3.57. The study ends in 2005, which is rather convenient given the 40% increase of Connecticut homicides in 2006. Extending the study period even by a few years drastically changes the results.

John Lott is a professional gun rights activist with a long history of dubious, discredited pro-gun research. To say his opinion is not useful is an understatement.

And Daniel Webster is a professional anti-gun activist who's repeatedly lobbied for gun control. Biased doesn't mean incorrect.

 

[fskimospy]

Nothing in the study supports the conclusion that Connecticut would have followed Rhode Island in deviating from the national trend had it not passed its PTP law.

What's your basis for saying that? First, he wasn't using the states themselves, he was using sections of several states to create a composite using statistical methods. How did you come to your conclusion?

Again, Rhode Island and Connecticut both roughly followed national homicide rate trends. In 1998--two years after Connecticut passed its law--Rhode Island deviated significantly and experienced increased homicide rates. Connecticut continued to follow the national trend.

This trend reversed in the mid-2000's, with Rhode Island's homicide rate decreasing from a high of 2.58 to 1.14, and Connecticut's increasing from a low of 1.61 to 3.57. The study ends in 2005, which is rather convenient given the 40% increase of Connecticut homicides in 2006. Extending the study period even by a few years drastically changes the results.

Yet still leaves Connecticut with a lower rate than its statistical composite counterfactual area.

And Daniel Webster is a professional anti-gun activist who's repeatedly lobbied for gun control. Biased doesn't mean incorrect.

I agree that biased doesn't mean incorrect. 'Previously incorrect about this topic and engaging in dubious research in the past up to and including making internet sockpuppets to praise yourself' does mean that it's probably a bad idea to cite him on the topic. Hence, no John Lott.

 

[rudeguy]

http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-c...ecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf

ok

Here's my post again since you seemed to have missed it and posted a link that has nothing to do with my post:

It honestly saddens me to see the democrats using another tragedy to try to force gun control through. Wasn't using the innocent children in Newton bad enough? Guess not because they are using another tragedy to try to control the population.

Last weekend 4 people were killed and 22 injured in gun violence in Chicago. That city has the strictest gun laws out there. Yet they still have a huge problem with gun violence. Why aren't the criminals following the law? Oh yea...criminals don't follow the laws. That's what makes them criminals.

Democrats got their gun control law with Clinton and it did nothing other than infringe on law abiding citizens' rights. Plenty of states and cities have enacted strict gun control laws and they have done nothing.

If anyone, democrat or republican has a plan that would actually make a difference and not just use innocent murder victims to advance their agenda, please post it.

Gun control has been tried to death and has failed to death. Site whatever study you want. All we have to do is look at the cities and states that have forced gun control on law abiding citizens. It does not work.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015-chicago-murders

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ear-to-year-comparison-nypd-article-1.2134509

http://homicide.latimes.com/


Guns are not the problem. Mass shootings are not the problem. Yet any chance a democrat has to take advantage of innocent people getting killed, they pounce. Democrats using Newton was honestly sickening. Now they are using this shooting. Why do they not care about the thousands murdered in Democrat cities and states with restrictive gun laws? Do those people not matter?

 

[hal2kilo]

Without reading the whole thread.

No changes will come of this.

QFT

 

[fskimospy]

ok

Here's my post again since you seemed to have missed it and posted a link that has nothing to do with my post:

Gun control has been tried to death and has failed to death. Site whatever study you want. All we have to do is look at the cities and states that have forced gun control on law abiding citizens. It does not work.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2015-chicago-murders

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ear-to-year-comparison-nypd-article-1.2134509

http://homicide.latimes.com/


Guns are not the problem. Mass shootings are not the problem. Yet any chance a democrat has to take advantage of innocent people getting killed, they pounce. Democrats using Newton was honestly sickening. Now they are using this shooting. Why do they not care about the thousands murdered in Democrat cities and states with restrictive gun laws? Do those people not matter?

Are you really trying to make the argument that anecdotes and single data points are better than actual research on the topic? You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

On another note, bad idea linking to a story about NYC. NYC has a lower murder/crime rate than lots of large cities with more relaxed gun laws. It handily beats every large city in Texas, just so you know. (so does LA, another city you linked to a story about) If you're trying to say gun control doesn't lower homicide/crime you're going to want to stay far, far away from NYC because it shows exactly the opposite.

 

[Venix]

Yet still leaves Connecticut with a lower rate than its statistical composite counterfactual area.

What numbers did you use to come to that conclusion? My analysis of "synthetic Connecticut" using CDC statistics shows that its homicide rate dips below real Connecticut's in 2007, and is significantly lower by 2011.

 

[fskimospy]

What numbers did you use to come to that conclusion? My analysis of "synthetic Connecticut" using CDC statistics shows that its homicide rate dips below real Connecticut's in 2007, and is significantly lower by 2011.

What CDC statistics are you using for the synthetic composite area?

If you're using stats for Rhode Island like the very confused Reason guy did, that's incorrect.

EDIT: As for my numbers I'm taking the Very Confused Reason Guy's estimate of a 12% reduction when only comparing incorrectly to Rhode Island. Since he was looking for the least favorable comparison possible it would seem that 12% is the floor, not the ceiling. Even if it's only 12%, that's significant.

 

[HTFOff]

On another note, bad idea linking to a story about NYC. NYC has a lower murder/crime rate than lots of large cities with more relaxed gun laws. It handily beats every large city in Texas, just so you know. (so does LA, another city you linked to a story about) If you're trying to say gun control doesn't lower homicide/crime you're going to want to stay far, far away from NYC because it shows exactly the opposite.

NYC has about 40,000 open carry individuals patrolling it's streets with a roughly $4 Billion dollar budget dedicated to LE. Combine that with steadily declining crime and murder rate coinciding with the rest of the country and yeah, you have a pretty darn safe place.

 

[Venix]

What CDC statistics are you using for the synthetic composite area?

If you're using stats for Rhode Island like the very confused Reason guy did, that's incorrect.

EDIT: As for my numbers I'm taking the Very Confused Reason Guy's estimate of a 12% reduction when only comparing incorrectly to Rhode Island. Since he was looking for the least favorable comparison possible it would seem that 12% is the floor, not the ceiling. Even if it's only 12%, that's significant.

I constructed synthetic Connecticut using weighted statistics from the five states listed in Table 1. I took the CDC statistics from gunpolicy.org. The result is that synthetic Connecticut (i.e. Connecticut without PTP law) has a lower homicide rate than real Connecticut by the late-00's.

I suspect that the authors knew this, but excluded that data because it contradicts their premise. That the first excluded year reversed the downward homicide rate trend and showed a 40% increase seems too convenient to be a coincidence.

Anyway, the study's conclusion is apparently that the PTP law had no effect from 1995-1999, reduced homicides from 1999-2005, and then increased homicides significantly from 2006-2011, ending with a higher homicide rate than the synthetic control. That seems silly. I think a more sensible interpretation of the data is that the law simply had no effect at all, that something unrelated happened in 1999 in Rhode Island to cause a brief homicide spike, and that something else unrelated happened in Connecticut in 2006 to cause its homicide spike.

 

[rudeguy]

Are you really trying to make the argument that anecdotes and single data points are better than actual research on the topic? You realize how ridiculous that is, right?

On another note, bad idea linking to a story about NYC. NYC has a lower murder/crime rate than lots of large cities with more relaxed gun laws. It handily beats every large city in Texas, just so you know. (so does LA, another city you linked to a story about) If you're trying to say gun control doesn't lower homicide/crime you're going to want to stay far, far away from NYC because it shows exactly the opposite.

You are changing what I said. You have a real problem with that.

I'm arguing that if you look at the results of cities and states with gun control, thousands of people are still murdered. Thousands of people are still shot. You downplaying those people losing their lives to advance your agenda shows just how sick you are.

 

[ivwshane]

You are changing what I said. You have a real problem with that.

I'm arguing that if you look at the results of cities and states with gun control, thousands of people are still murdered. Thousands of people are still shot. You downplaying those people losing their lives to advance your agenda shows just how sick you are.

Wut?!