Gun Control

[knapplc]

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.

 

 

I really don't care what definition you use for those countries. They are not in any way comparators for America. G8 nations are far better comparators no matter the metrics.

 

Unless you'd care to list countries which you feel are better comparators, and the definitions/terms for those countries you find most palatable?

[carlfense]

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.

The effect was nearly complete abandonment of gun violence research. It seems fairly obvious to me that this was exactly what the NRA intended.

 

http://www.businessi...research-2013-1

[Muck]

I really don't care what definition you use for those countries.

 

Then you will need to explain what your definition for the terms are since by definition Sweden was a third world nation.

 

They are not in any way comparators for America. G8 nations are far better comparators no matter the metrics.

 

Which G8 nation do you feel a better comparator to the US.....Russia or Japan?

 

Unless you'd care to list countries which you feel are better comparators, and the definitions/terms for those countries you find most palatable?

 

To be blunt, broad comparisons between very large groups that have little in common economically or culturally are of little use period. If you want valid data then you need to look at changes within a single group.

[knapplc]

So list the countries you're comfortable comparing America to, and why.

[carlfense]

So list the countries you're comfortable comparing America to, and why.

[Muck]

The effect was nearly complete abandonment of gun violence research. It seems fairly obvious to me that this was exactly what the NRA intended.

 

http://www.businessi...research-2013-1

 

What seems obvious to you appears to be less obvious to the CDC itself.

 

That being said if the response to a ban on political lobbying was to abandon research then a reasonable person might conclude that the only purpose for said research was to further the lobbying effort. I'll leave it up to others to decide whether concluding that a ban on political lobbying was actually a front to prohibit research is equally reasonable.

 

Despite claims to the contrary studies on gun violence have continued to be published in the intervening years.

[Muck]

So list the countries you're comfortable comparing America to, and why.

 

Read my post again, pay particular attention to the last two lines...

 

"To be blunt, broad comparisons between very large groups that have little in common economically or culturally are of little use period. If you want valid data then you need to look at changes within a single group."

 

It has nothing to do with whether or not I'm comfortable with cross national comparisons, it has to do with the fact that they aren't of much value.

 

 

Ahh I see, well I'll let you kids get back to your circle jerk then.

[knapplc]

So list the countries you're comfortable comparing America to, and why.

 

Read my post again, pay particular attention to the last two lines...

 

"To be blunt, broad comparisons between very large groups that have little in common economically or culturally are of little use period. If you want valid data then you need to look at changes within a single group."

 

I'm really not interested in playing this game.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There aren't any countries we can compare America to and say that what they proposed there would have the same effect if it were proposed here. I'm not saying it in an ethnocentric way, I'm saying it to be statistically correct. The United States is so vastly different than the other G8 nations that we can't really draw any conclusions comparing gun legislation there to what should happen here and say with certainty that it would have the same effect.

 

We are our own nation.

[knapplc]

Nobody is proposing that we do exactly what other countries have done to combat gun violence. We would obviously tailor our approach to America's needs. But to claim we can't look for examples from other countries at all is absurd.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Nobody is proposing that we do exactly what other countries have done to combat gun violence. We would obviously tailor our approach to America's needs. But to claim we can't look for examples from other countries at all is absurd.

 

I didn't know 'Nobody' had posted in this topic

 

There were some posters in here that were saying, or at least implied that we should do exactly what other countries are doing and that would magically work out for us like it did them. I think, when (if) we start research on gun control effects on gun violence, we'll have to look at other nations, just like when you're wanting to research anything, you have to go back through the existing literature and tailor their method to fit what you want to study.

[knapplc]

Ha, ha.

 

Have "some posters" posted in this topic? A search of our members doesn't show that name.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Touche.

[Enhance]

I think it's only natural we should look to other countries for examples and guidance for dealing with our gun issues.

 

I can't remember if I talked about it in this thread or another, but I have previously discussed what Australia did to combat gun violence. After a gunman killed 35 people in 1996, they introduced a law that divided guns into five categories. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips are near impossible to lawfully own in Australia, handguns have a strict permitting process, and they implemented a gun buyback program that destroyed 700,000 weapons.

 

Since then, their homicide rates per 100,000 people has dropped from .43 to 0.1. They've also had zero mass shooting in the same time frame - zero. They had 13 massacres in the two decades leading up to the law. The united states has significantly more weapons - significantly more - and a much more powerful gun association (the NRA), but I believe this shows that a country that gets serious about gun violence can make significant changes, changes that have real impact.

[Junior]

I think it's only natural we should look to other countries for examples and guidance for dealing with our gun issues.

 

I can't remember if I talked about it in this thread or another, but I have previously discussed what Australia did to combat gun violence. After a gunman killed 35 people in 1996, they introduced a law that divided guns into five categories. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazine clips are near impossible to lawfully own in Australia, handguns have a strict permitting process, and they implemented a gun buyback program that destroyed 700,000 weapons.

 

Since then, their homicide rates per 100,000 people has dropped from .43 to 0.1. They've also had zero mass shooting in the same time frame - zero. They had 13 massacres in the two decades leading up to the law. The united states has significantly more weapons - significantly more - and a much more powerful gun association (the NRA), but I believe this shows that a country that gets serious about gun violence can make significant changes, changes that have real impact.

 

Yea, I brought this up several times and was rebuked because "America! F- Yeah!"