Gun Control

[Junior]

In the same vein knapp,

 

Where is it a proven point that even "more" gun control will stop mass shootings?

 

yur a bitchin' mod too. I'm such a suckass.

 

Australia.

 

No, Australia is a different country in the United States. We have a problem, you want to answer it, answer the questions from my post above using data from the USA.

 

So we can give communism a try? I mean I know the USSR tried and it failed, but hey, we're America and we do everything better, right?

[knapplc]

In the same vein knapp,

 

Where is it a proven point that even "more" gun control will stop mass shootings?

I don't really care about another country that doesn't have the same freedoms we enjoy today under our Constitution. just sayin' apples and oranges.

 

OK, so the answer given was "Australia," by Junior, who has been trying to get people to see that we can control gun violence with appropriate legislation, and the reply is, "I don't really care about another country that doesn't have the same freedoms we enjoy today under our Constitution."

 

You've then, rawhide, asked an impossible question to answer. If you're looking for proof that gun legislation will stop mass shootings, but your ONLY acceptable source for this proof is America, then you can't have an answer because we've never eliminated guns from our culture. Until we do, nobody can answer the question the way you ask it.

 

Thus, the question itself is irrelevant, asked the way it's asked.

[sd'sker]

I don't really care about another country that doesn't have the same freedoms we enjoy today under our Constitution. just sayin' apples and oranges.

how about state to state?

 

 

States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

 

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:

“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”

[It'sNotAFakeID]

External validity. If we can say that, yes Australia and the USA are similar enough that what works there could work here to a greater or lesser extent, then we can have this discussion.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

sd, what are the characteristics of the states with gun laws? Could one of those characteristics have more of an effect to the lower gun deaths than the fact that have stricter gun laws?

[knapplc]

sd, what are the characteristics of the states with gun laws? Could one of those characteristics have more of an effect to the lower gun deaths than the fact that have stricter gun laws?

 

I'll bet they all have fewer mentally ill people.

[carlfense]

Listen, I don't have a problem with any of you guys, I'd buy you a beer and joke around with you no problem. I think we all want an answer to this question, but it's unclear what the answer is. I'm not a hardcore gun advocate, but I also don't know what the right answer is.

Completely agree. +1

[carlfense]

I agree about the Mod part. BRI isn't saying a THING about being a Mod. He's offering his opinion, and it's a copout to throw his Mod status at him. Just because he's a Mod doesn't mean he's not a member, and he has the same right to discuss this stuff as anyone else.

I didn't know that it was such a sensitive point . . . I'll edit it to say "member" and not "mod." If there's a difference in emphasis it was purely unintentional.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

sd, what are the characteristics of the states with gun laws? Could one of those characteristics have more of an effect to the lower gun deaths than the fact that have stricter gun laws?

 

I'll bet they all have fewer mentally ill people.

 

I think we're all just focused so intensely on two factors: mental health and the amount of guns. To suggest that those two are the ONLY two predictors of gun violence is a bit ridiculous.

[rawhide]

Using the same formula take other countries and figure out who has the most violent crime rates per capita. USA isn't even in the top 10 apples and oranges BIG RED DELICIOUS vs. stinkin' navel

[knapplc]

Using the same formula take other countries and figure out who has the most violent crime rates per capita. USA isn't even in the top 10 apples and oranges BIG RED DELICIOUS vs. stinkin' navel

We had this discussion umpteen pages ago. If you take ALL countries into account you're bringing third-world countries into the discussion and they're not comparable to America.

 

Comparing first-world nations, or G8 nations, we're at or near the top, and there's no excuse for that.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Even the G8 nations differ from each other. We're taking a much too simplistic view of this issue.

[zoogs]

My argument is where do you draw the line?

 

I think we definitely agree here. And really, I don't know where to draw the line. I'm not sure the AR-15 is really a problem. I believe there are some statistics floating around, I don't know how valid or not, that AR-15s and similar weapons make up a comparably small amount of current and historical cases of gun violence in the United States.

 

If I had to target something I'd target high capacity mags, which other statistics show are the weapon of choice for incidences of mass gun violence. There are some I believe Virginia statistics floating around that show a startling difference in gun violence during the AWB that expired several years ago (which included a ban on high capacity mags), and since.

 

So the reason why the mental health argument I would consider a cop out is this. It's a deflection of culpability. It's saying, "This is really the problem, we should be fixing that." But while I fully support much better efforts at the mental health issue, it's one that always has and always will exist. Even supposing the suggestion that "if mental health issues were eradicated, gun violence would no longer be a problem, is a fair statement" - and it's not - mental health issues won't be eradicated in the first place.

 

You might as well say, "The problem is criminals." That's perfectly true, and you can outlaw criminals, or outlaw mental health issues, but that won't stop either from occurring.

 

It's a simple, if unfortunate reality of the world we live in today and have always lived in, that there are dangerously irresponsible and deranged people. What's different today from say, three hundred years ago, is the killing capacity that is at their fingertips, made available by advances in technology. So yes, we shouldn't take away from the emphasis on improved mental health response, but this is a reality that will not change. So, an equally important question is: what, if anything, we do about this new access?

 

 

No, Australia is a different country in the United States. We have a problem, you want to answer it, answer the questions from my post above using data from the USA.

 

This is a good point, and it highlights the biggest problem I can see here.

 

The NRA successfully lobbied years ago to cut off any CDC funding on gun violence research. We're in an era, where, thanks to the gun lobbies, we simply aren't armed with enough research in an area where it is extremely important to be armed with research.

 

There's raw data, yeah, but that's hardly enough. This is a problem of considerable importance and urgency, and I think everyone can agree that the more research we have going into it, the better the nation will be able to understand and respond to the issue.

[carlfense]

My argument is where do you draw the line?

 

I think we definitely agree here. And really, I don't know where to draw the line. I'm not sure the AR-15 is really a problem. I believe there are some statistics floating around, I don't know how valid or not, that AR-15s and similar weapons make up a comparably small amount of current and historical cases of gun violence in the United States.

 

If I had to target something I'd target high capacity mags, which other statistics show are the weapon of choice for incidences of mass gun violence. There are some I believe Virginia statistics floating around that show a startling difference in gun violence during the AWB that expired several years ago (which included a ban on high capacity mags), and since.

 

So the reason why the mental health argument I would consider a cop out is this. It's a deflection of culpability. It's saying, "This is really the problem, we should be fixing that." But while I fully support much better efforts at the mental health issue, it's one that always has and always will exist. Even supposing the suggestion that "if mental health issues were eradicated, gun violence would no longer be a problem, is a fair statement" - and it's not - mental health issues won't be eradicated in the first place.

 

You might as well say, "The problem is criminals." That's perfectly true, and you can outlaw criminals, or outlaw mental health issues, but that won't stop either from occurring.

 

It's a simple, if unfortunate reality of the world we live in today and have always lived in, that there are dangerously irresponsible and deranged people. What's different today from say, three hundred years ago, is the killing capacity that is at their fingertips, made available by advances in technology. So yes, we shouldn't take away from the emphasis on improved mental health response, but this is a reality that will not change. So, an equally important question is: what, if anything, we do about this new access?

 

 

No, Australia is a different country in the United States. We have a problem, you want to answer it, answer the questions from my post above using data from the USA.

 

This is a good point, and it highlights the biggest problem I can see here.

 

The NRA successfully lobbied years ago to cut off any CDC funding on gun violence research. We're in an era, where, thanks to the gun lobbies, we simply aren't armed with enough research in an area where it is extremely important to be armed with research.

 

There's raw data, yeah, but that's hardly enough. This is a problem of considerable importance and urgency, and I think everyone can agree that the more research we have going into it, the better the nation will be able to understand and respond to the issue.

Great post. +1

[sd'sker]

sd, what are the characteristics of the states with gun laws? Could one of those characteristics have more of an effect to the lower gun deaths than the fact that have stricter gun laws?

nothing exists in a vacuum. and the burden of information you have created would not allow for any legislation of anything. i fully understand the problems of causation vs. correlation but we can only use the information we have.

it is near impossible to successfully discuss this issue, or any other, under the parameters you have created. i mean, would you have guessed that lead is likely the cause of the increase and decrease of crime from the '80s to now?