Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill

[shlver]

Actually there's pretty good info that would support my hypothesis.

Post it then.

Dude, a dead body is a dead body. It doesn't matter if they were killed with a gun or a knife or a chainsaw. If gun control doesn't reduce the total number of dead bodies, what is the point?

Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.

[bmulls]

Post it then.

Because guns are more effective at causing fatality.

What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country. Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.

[bmulls]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.

[shlver]

What? The goal here is to reduce the number of murders in the country.

No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.

Harvard study finds gun control does not reduce the number of murders.

Gun control for the sake of gun control makes no sense unless it has a practical purpose. If there is no statistical advantage to it, it is not a rational course of action.

You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.

[shlver]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.

Which is why I made a case for tighter measures of gun control, not an outright ban. I already said shotguns for stopping power and protection and hunting rifles should be allowed but heavily regulated.

[bmulls]

No society can fully protect against individuals that do not buy into its values.

You posted it yourself. Places with tighter gun control measure have a lower rate of gun homicides. That is one of the purposes of gun control. That is a statistical advantage. You have to show WHY gun laws would have an effect on the total crime rate to make a point here, not make an assumption that it would have an effect on the total crime rate.

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.

Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year.

There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.

[daily]

Harvard study finds that gun control is ineffective at reducing the total crime rate:

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

While countries with lax gun laws have more gun murders, they have, on average, lower total murder rates than countries with strict gun control.

From the study page 670

But the more plausible explanation for many nations having widespread gun ownership with low violence is that these nations never had high murder and violence rates and so never had occasion to enact severe anti‐gun laws. On the other hand, in nations that have experienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reaction has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws.

This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citizenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce violence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not significantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands

[shlver]

You are so focused on guns here you are failing to see the bigger picture. MURDER VICTIMS, DEAD PEOPLE. BODY COUNT. At the end of the day this is what matters.

That's what gun control is. It's about guns. You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.

Harvard statisticians and criminologists conclude that gun control is not positively correlated with the murder rate. Gun control does not affect the bottom line, the number of people murdered every year.

That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.

There is no counter argument to be made here unless you want to dispute the study itself.

Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.

[bmulls]

From the study page 670



Problem is a blog trying to reduce a incredibly complicated study down to one page.

in the end no matter, I can safely say that a person is not walking into a school and killing 26 with his bare hands

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but

[D-Rose]

Also watch the video I posted. Since Australia banned guns they haven't had any mass murders, but the total rate of gun murder has actually gone up.

Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...731-23ct7.html

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

[QUOTE]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law

[bmulls]

That's what gun control is. It's about guns. You can't relate total crime rate and gun control if you don't show a clear, defined relationship. Especially something as intractable as societies that number in the millions.


That's not what gun control is trying to affect though. Gun control affects crimes committed with guns and you posted it.


Yes there is. Show a clearly, defined causal relationship between the total crime rate and gun control. You can't and the professors of that study say it as well.

You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?

[shlver]

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but

Read it! It basically says the problem is rooted in culture and society. However, it shows a decrease in gun murders in tighter regulated countries meaning a more effective method of committing murder(guns) is abated.

[bmulls]

Completely FALSE!

In the decade following the new gun laws, gun homicide fell 59% and gun suicide fell 65%.

I based that statement on the video.

After googling it, it would appear that the study you have cited was written by serious gun control advocates.

Other studies have found "no structural breaks" in the rate of homicide, or "no significant result for homicide":

http://www.ssaa.org.au/capital-news/...un-buyback.pdf
http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/br_j_criminology_2006_.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-in-australia/

I can't find where the video got those numbers, so I apologize if they are bogus.

[shlver]

You can't "prove" causality. No study in the history of the world has ever "proven" causality. All you can do is look at the statistics and draw reasonable conclusions. This is statistics 101.

To make an analogy, you're trying to argue that speeding is against the law because we want people to drive slower. Why? Just because. The reality is speeding is against the law because it leads to accidents which result in injury and death. The law is designed to prevent the injury and death, not necessarily fast driving.

Get it?

Of course you can't prove causality, but the concept of gun control in itself is to stop crimes committed with guns. Show me how it can affect total crime rate. Other than that, it's just a useless correlation and hand waving exercise.

[daily]

Did you really just try to refute me by quoting a paragraph which begins with the declaration that gun control is futile?

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but

context. you have to read the first paragraph first then read the second in the context of the first.


Look I know you're upset your right to have a gun is being threatened but falling back into the cliche right wing gun sniffing nutjob isin't helping you. I'm a gun owner also but I can say you're doing nothing but a disservice to the topic with your immature sniping and in reality actually making the argument for gun control stronger. Seriously the thought of somebody like you owning gun is frightening