Gun Control

[Junior]

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.

 

Yes. 100 times, yes.

 

Also, I'd be curious as to any examples of freedoms we enjoy that Australians don't. Or if the people making statements about such things actually have any idea what the Australian government is like... I'm not saying we don't have more freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, I'm more curious if people can provide evidence for their claims.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

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.

I would agree that high capacity magazines will get banned on some level.................it's obvious it's going to happen and it's obvious only law enforcement, military, etc. will be allowed to purchase such magazines. Will it stop the mass shootings? No, it won't...................as I've stated before anyone that is trained even a little on a magazine exchange can do it fairly quickly and be back to killing people fairly quickly. Again, I don't think just dealing with mental health will fix the problem, there are several things that need to be fixed to ease our issues as a society. Mental health is one of those issues............

[BIGREDIOWAN]

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.

 

Yes. 100 times, yes.

 

Also, I'd be curious as to any examples of freedoms we enjoy that Australians don't. Or if the people making statements about such things actually have any idea what the Australian government is like... I'm not saying we don't have more freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, I'm more curious if people can provide evidence for their claims.

I think I'm moving to Australia when this country goes to hell............................the only thing is they have A LOT of poisonous spiders and I hate spiders!

[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?

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?

 

Exactly nothing exists in a vacuum, that's what I'm saying. And it is entirely possible to figure out a sensical variable that could confound that data. And it's extremelyhard to make information ccausal, but we can statistically control for other variables. That much is possible.

 

Trust me, I wouldn't be saying these things if I wasn't confident that I know what I'm talking about.

[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?

 

Exactly nothing exists in a vacuum, that's what I'm saying. And it is entirely possible to figure out a sensical variable that could confound that data. And it's extremelyhard to make information ccausal, but we can statistically control for other variables. That much is possible.

 

Trust me, I wouldn't be saying these things if I wasn't confident that I know what I'm talking about.

what are you talking about, then? what is your point?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'll type it out more when I'm using something other than my phone.

[tschu]

I'm pretty sure I know what you're getting at Bye Bye and it's a very good point

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Okay, now that I'm in front of a computer, let me explain what I was trying to get at. Early on in psychological research (actually this may not be way early, but I can't remember), researchers were interested in what causes the increase in the crime rate during the summer months, because crime always increased in the months of May, June, July, and August. So they collected variables from the neighborhoods and ran their statistical tests. What they noticed, was that ice cream sales increased directly with the increase in crime (a significant, and positive r-value...something like r(N) > .30, p < .05. There were no other correlates to the increase in crime. But does this make sense?

 

I don't know about you, but eating an ice cream cone makes me want to commit murder. OR I don't know about you, but something about committing a murder makes me want an ice cream cone.

 

What the researchers didn't measure, which is highly correlated to temperature, which is highly correlated to crime rates AND ice cream cone sales, is the relationship between temperature and mood. When it gets hot, people are more irritable. When people are more irritable, they are more violent, and when people are more violent, they are more likely to commit crimes.

 

In summary:

 

Ice cream is not correlated to crime rates. Ice cream is correlated to temperature. Temperature is correlated to irritable mood both significantly and positively, and irritable mood is correlated to crime rates both significantly and positively.

 

So let's take the same story and apply it to these states where stricter gun laws have resulted in fewer gun related deaths. One thing I noticed about the studies is the fact that there are states with both high populations and low populations that have fewer gun related deaths. These states also share stricter gun laws. So population probably isn't a correlate of gun deaths, that shouldn't come as a surprise. But there are so many other things that he didn't measure that could be correlated with fewer gun deaths that are also correlated with gun control, that when you correlate x to gun deaths while controlling for gun control laws (this assumes that every state has the same gun control laws) that x is better correlated to gun deaths than gun control laws are when correlated to gun deaths controlling for x. What would be interesting is for him to throw all these variables into a multiple regression. Find out what predicts gun deaths and see if it really is gun control laws--or if gun control laws are the most important contributor to gun deaths.

[Junior]

Okay, now that I'm in front of a computer, let me explain what I was trying to get at. Early on in psychological research (actually this may not be way early, but I can't remember), researchers were interested in what causes the increase in the crime rate during the summer months, because crime always increased in the months of May, June, July, and August. So they collected variables from the neighborhoods and ran their statistical tests. What they noticed, was that ice cream sales increased directly with the increase in crime (a significant, and positive r-value...something like r(N) > .30, p < .05. There were no other correlates to the increase in crime. But does this make sense?

 

I don't know about you, but eating an ice cream cone makes me want to commit murder. OR I don't know about you, but something about committing a murder makes me want an ice cream cone.

 

What the researchers didn't measure, which is highly correlated to temperature, which is highly correlated to crime rates AND ice cream cone sales, is the relationship between temperature and mood. When it gets hot, people are more irritable. When people are more irritable, they are more violent, and when people are more violent, they are more likely to commit crimes.

 

In summary:

 

Ice cream is not correlated to crime rates. Ice cream is correlated to temperature. Temperature is correlated to irritable mood both significantly and positively, and irritable mood is correlated to crime rates both significantly and positively.

 

So let's take the same story and apply it to these states where stricter gun laws have resulted in fewer gun related deaths. One thing I noticed about the studies is the fact that there are states with both high populations and low populations that have fewer gun related deaths. These states also share stricter gun laws. So population probably isn't a correlate of gun deaths, that shouldn't come as a surprise. But there are so many other things that he didn't measure that could be correlated with fewer gun deaths that are also correlated with gun control, that when you correlate x to gun deaths while controlling for gun control laws (this assumes that every state has the same gun control laws) that x is better correlated to gun deaths than gun control laws are when correlated to gun deaths controlling for x. What would be interesting is for him to throw all these variables into a multiple regression. Find out what predicts gun deaths and see if it really is gun control laws--or if gun control laws are the most important contributor to gun deaths.

 

"Correlation does not equal causation." I'm a big fan of that quote, it's a personal favorite. However, by your severely flawed logic, you can't even correlate a person with a homicide because there are other factors: Well sure, there were people there, but there was also a trash can in the room.

 

Indeed, you can't account for every variable in a situation. However, when you are talking about differences in GUN related deaths, looking at differences in GUN related laws is a logical progression. Comparing ice cream cone sales to gun deaths isn't logical at all.

[knapplc]

I'm no statistician, but I think what BBBXII is saying is, there ARE things you can correlate to discover the root causes of gun violence. He's explaining the methodology of doing that.

 

At least, that's what I got out of that.

 

And now I want some ice cream.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm no statistician, but I think what BBBXII is saying is, there ARE things you can correlate to discover the root causes of gun violence. He's explaining the methodology of doing that.

 

At least, that's what I got out of that.

 

And now I want some ice cream.

 

 

Bang on, knapplc.

 

Junior, I know above all that correlation doesn't equal causation. In statistical research (and furthermore, psychological research) unless you have 1) random assignment of individuals 2) by the researcher 3) before the manipulation of the independent variable (in this case, stricter gun control laws), you can't make causal claims. Causality can not be inferred by any of these stats given, and the researcher has said that. I understand we are all limited by time and information processing constraints--we simply do not have the time or resources to measure EVERY variable that COULD be related to gun deaths, such as temperature, where the state falls on the conservative-liberal continuum, the interaction between mental health and violence (as I'm sure people with different mental health conditions may be more or less prone to violence than others), the overall culture of gun (some states are more open to them, some aren't--and those aren't necessarily reflected in gun control laws), and so on and so forth. These are all very sensical "third variable problems" that could end up making the correlation between gun control and gun deaths rather insignificant. We won't know until they are measured.

 

My logic isn't flawed--at least it wasn't flawed in my head when I typed the words onto the screen. If I didn't type it exactly how I meant to, and that discrepancy creates a flaw in logic, then that's on my end and was by no means intentional. I'm studying for 3 tests, while working on a research project running a multiple regression model across populations using archival data, all the while writing up a proposal to work on my own research project which deals with the maximizing-satsificing continuum, where people fall on it, and the effects it has on how they perform in the work environment. That proposal is due the 7th of April. So apologies if my logic was flawed.

 

For anyone who cares, here is how I think you can get to the roots of gun violence and truly come up with a great explanation for it:

 

None of us have the answer, but what I can almost guarantee that there is not one issue at the core of this problem.

 

Do you guys think it is possible to predict who will engage in gun violence? If so, what are those predictors? And how are those predictors lined up? Are some of those predictors manifested right before that person partakes in gun violence? Or are some of those predictors characterlogical and just ingrained? Then what variables happen in between, potentially mediating some of the later manifesting variables? You want to understand gun violence, you better start answering those questions.

 

What I'm proposing there is a statistical test called a path analysis, which examines how variables line up temporally and how they are related to a criterion variable. It is a complicated process, and for gun violence, I can only imagine that there would be a lot of layers and a lot of variables, some which have a direct effect, and some which indirectly effect gun violence. But again, we won't know until we can research it, and the NRA is doing a fine job of preventing that. We're living in a backwards country when it comes to addressing this issue.

[tschu]

...and I was right.

[tschu]

OH THAT REMINDS ME...You want to hear probably the most incredible theory about what causes an increase in violent crime?

 

Lead exposure.

http://www.motherjon...e-link-gasoline

 

Seriously. This article is incredible. And I'd have to look up some more stuff (its been a couple months since I did a mass googling-spree on this subject) but seems like research into this idea has been gaining some steam. It's really interesting stuff.

[Junior]

Bang on, knapplc.

 

Junior, I know above all that correlation doesn't equal causation. In statistical research (and furthermore, psychological research) unless you have 1) random assignment of individuals 2) by the researcher 3) before the manipulation of the independent variable (in this case, stricter gun control laws), you can't make causal claims. Causality can not be inferred by any of these stats given, and the researcher has said that. I understand we are all limited by time and information processing constraints--we simply do not have the time or resources to measure EVERY variable that COULD be related to gun deaths, such as temperature, where the state falls on the conservative-liberal continuum, the interaction between mental health and violence (as I'm sure people with different mental health conditions may be more or less prone to violence than others), the overall culture of gun (some states are more open to them, some aren't--and those aren't necessarily reflected in gun control laws), and so on and so forth. These are all very sensical "third variable problems" that could end up making the correlation between gun control and gun deaths rather insignificant. We won't know until they are measured.

 

My logic isn't flawed--at least it wasn't flawed in my head when I typed the words onto the screen. If I didn't type it exactly how I meant to, and that discrepancy creates a flaw in logic, then that's on my end and was by no means intentional. I'm studying for 3 tests, while working on a research project running a multiple regression model across populations using archival data, all the while writing up a proposal to work on my own research project which deals with the maximizing-satsificing continuum, where people fall on it, and the effects it has on how they perform in the work environment. That proposal is due the 7th of April. So apologies if my logic was flawed.

 

For anyone who cares, here is how I think you can get to the roots of gun violence and truly come up with a great explanation for it:

 

None of us have the answer, but what I can almost guarantee that there is not one issue at the core of this problem.

 

Do you guys think it is possible to predict who will engage in gun violence? If so, what are those predictors? And how are those predictors lined up? Are some of those predictors manifested right before that person partakes in gun violence? Or are some of those predictors characterlogical and just ingrained? Then what variables happen in between, potentially mediating some of the later manifesting variables? You want to understand gun violence, you better start answering those questions.

 

What I'm proposing there is a statistical test called a path analysis, which examines how variables line up temporally and how they are related to a criterion variable. It is a complicated process, and for gun violence, I can only imagine that there would be a lot of layers and a lot of variables, some which have a direct effect, and some which indirectly effect gun violence. But again, we won't know until we can research it, and the NRA is doing a fine job of preventing that. We're living in a backwards country when it comes to addressing this issue.

 

So, I seem to have suffered from a case of reading too quickly in between time points in my experiment... and I missed the point entirely. My mistake!! I see what you are saying and it makes sense to me.

[Muck]

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.

 

First, second & third world are cold war terms and have been irrelevant for the past twenty years.

 

That being said nations with small, culturally homogeneous populations are equally non-comparable with the US. Cherry picking which apples & oranges you wish to compare does little to further an objective debate.

 

What I'm proposing there is a statistical test called a path analysis, which examines how variables line up temporally and how they are related to a criterion variable. It is a complicated process, and for gun violence, I can only imagine that there would be a lot of layers and a lot of variables, some which have a direct effect, and some which indirectly effect gun violence. But again, we won't know until we can research it, and the NRA is doing a fine job of preventing that. We're living in a backwards country when it comes to addressing this issue.

 

That is just flat out not true. The relevant law actually states...

 

"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

 

The CDC was not being blocked from funding research it was being prevented from continuing as a platform for political advocacy. Throughout the 80's & 90's there were a number of high profile individuals within the Center (along with the JAMA & NEJM) who believed that firearms where inherently bad and that individuals should be prohibited from owning them. They specifically funded research with the sole purpose of furthering that goal.

 

That's not science....it's ax grinding.

 

What does the CDC have to say about the legislation?

 

"In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act,CDC interprets the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms."

 

The CDC itself does not believe that it is prohibited from funding research

 

There is actually quite a bit of peer reviewed research available regarding firearms & violence. The problem is that most of it just doesn't support the claims of those who are at war with private firearm ownership.

 

On the other hand the work that the CDC funded was generally viewed as being substandard and of little value. Even in the generally sympathetic JAMA & NEJM they were savaged in review.