Feinstein Proposing Specifics: New Gun Control Bill

[elucidator]

Of course, an automobile is just like a gun, except for piddling details like purpose, function and design. Wheels. of course, but that falls under "design".

[Stealth Potato]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Of course, an automobile is just like a gun, except for piddling details like purpose, function and design. Wheels. of course, but that falls under "design".

Almost nobody would need their own vehicle if our social and environmental priorities were in order. I think there would be many benefits to outlawing private vehicles, but achieving that any time soon is not realistic.

[China Guy]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

So you are going to gloss over the fact that the US is at a 50 year low?

why do you get the special pleading.?

gotta cite for that?

secondly, moving goalposts again. you asked for evidence and I gave it to you. ya wanna debate or just handwave again?

[elucidator]

But, really, what kind of evidence is useful here, regardless of one's stance. How many factors enter into crime statistics? No matter what, aren't we pretty much doomed to post hoc failure in our evidence?

If gun related homicide dropped 40% in Elbonia after they completely removed all gun controls, would that prove something? How about if there were a nationwide disgust with firearms, so that nobody much had them? Where social pressures outweigh legal pressures?

Or a 40% rise in homicides after gun restrictions were enacted, but only criminals had them and there was an ongoing, vigorous debate in the free black market.

How can we isolate an experiment in statistics that will prove any point, whatsoever, in something as chaotic and energetic as America?

The question can't be resolved on a data point, however sharp it may be. It can only be a matter of reasonable sifting of uncertain data, where no scientific conclusion is possible.

I disapprove of the violence in my America. Duh. If I truly believed that an absence of guns in my country would directly and effectively address that problem, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. I would call up the black helicopters and grab every gun in sight.

But it just ain't so.

Is it really a threat to suggest that maybe your strange Uncle Fred ought not to have a military style weapon? If you feel the need for nine millimeter reassurance, maybe fifteen rounds ought to be enough? Are these unreasonable questions? Or can our concerns be dismissed if we are not familiar with configurations of bayonet attachments? Need I be an oncologist to despise cancer? Do I need to know the precise definition of the weapon I don't ever want to see?

Let us resolve to be less fearful of each other. And if we can't quite manage that, let's do our best to pretend. The only way to kill a demon is to starve it to death.

Happy New Year.

[Grumman]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Or can our concerns be dismissed if we are not familiar with configurations of bayonet attachments?

It's not exactly rocket science. What kind of complete imbecile do you have to be to not grasp the intricacies of attaching a stabby bit to a shooty bit? The kind whose understanding of reality is so crippled as to have no worthwhile input to give.

[elucidator]

Don't listen. Problem solved. You're welcome.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Grumman

It's not exactly rocket science. What kind of complete imbecile do you have to be to not grasp the intricacies of attaching a stabby bit to a shooty bit? The kind whose understanding of reality is so crippled as to have no worthwhile input to give.

Save this kind of stuff for the Pit, Grumman.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by elucidator

...Is it really a threat to suggest that maybe your strange Uncle Fred ought not to have a military style weapon? If you feel the need for nine millimeter reassurance, maybe fifteen rounds ought to be enough? Are these unreasonable questions? Or can our concerns be dismissed if we are not familiar with configurations of bayonet attachments? Need I be an oncologist to despise cancer? Do I need to know the precise definition of the weapon I don't ever want to see?

The problem is that it's not my strange Uncle Fred. It's me. Productive member of society that I am. Owner of a business that employs a dozen guys making 6 figure incomes in a good year, father of three, independent voter, and happily married. Every time you try to and isolate owners of the guns as crazy Uncle Freds, you push us back just a little farther. I'm at the point where I really don't care to argue anymore.

I have spent the last 20 years collecting the guns that I have and I plan to pass them on to my kids. The threat as I see it, is that these weapons have somehow been placed on the chopping block with absolutely no serious consideration of their involvement in crime at the national level. They just aren't the problem. What may seem reasonable to you and others, just seems short sighted to me.

Happy new year to you also. I'm now off to watch Nebraska lose.

[ElvisL1ves]

So, if those weapons were to disappear, along with whatever threat to the lives of innocents they may or may not represent, something of value would be lost, either to you or society as a whole? Is that it? What thing of value would that be?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Round and round, you keep shifting goal posts so there's never any point to actually debate. I would actually like to have a debate but we can't get seem to fix any goalposts. Now you're fine with the US as a whole instead of State by State, and it's developed Europe?

You asked for a country that introduced significant gun bans. AFAIK, England is the only country to have done so. England homicide and firearm homicides are significantly lower than the US. English firearm homicides have declined for the past 10 years. Prove this trend is not related to the gun bans in England?

Not shifting goalpost, if you want to lock it down state by state that is fine too but to claim that Englands drop was due to gun control but the rest of European countries and the US drop in crime was not is special pleading.

Note Australia also did a similar gun ban and confiscation, I provided many cites to show it didn't work there you can read the thread for those cites.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by China Guy

gotta cite for that?

secondly, moving goalposts again. you asked for evidence and I gave it to you. ya wanna debate or just handwave again?

Seeing as this is government produced data and thus public domain and because you obviously don't follow links and even look at cites as this has been provided in this thread multiple times already I will provide you the stats from the FBI for the US.

Year Murder
1960 5.1
1961 4.8
1962 4.6
1963 4.6
1964 4.9
1965 5.1
1966 5.6
1967 6.2
1968 6.9
1969 7.3
1970 7.9
1971 8.6
1972 9.0
1973 9.4
1974 9.8
1975 9.6
1976 8.7
1977 8.8
1978 9.0
1979 9.8
1980 10.2
1981 9.8
1982 9.1
1983 8.3
1984 7.9
1985 8.0
1986 8.6
1987 8.3
1988 8.4
1989 8.7
1990 9.4
1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5
2001 5.6
2002 5.6
2003 5.7
2004 5.5
2005 5.6
2006 5.7
2007 5.6
2008 5.4
2009 5.0
2010 4.8
2011 4.7

Now are you going to ignore that we are at the lowest homicide rate since 1963?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

But, really, what kind of evidence is useful here, regardless of one's stance. How many factors enter into crime statistics? No matter what, aren't we pretty much doomed to post hoc failure in our evidence?

If gun related homicide dropped 40% in Elbonia after they completely removed all gun controls, would that prove something? How about if there were a nationwide disgust with firearms, so that nobody much had them? Where social pressures outweigh legal pressures?

Or a 40% rise in homicides after gun restrictions were enacted, but only criminals had them and there was an ongoing, vigorous debate in the free black market.

How can we isolate an experiment in statistics that will prove any point, whatsoever, in something as chaotic and energetic as America?

The question can't be resolved on a data point, however sharp it may be. It can only be a matter of reasonable sifting of uncertain data, where no scientific conclusion is possible.

I disapprove of the violence in my America. Duh. If I truly believed that an absence of guns in my country would directly and effectively address that problem, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment. I would call up the black helicopters and grab every gun in sight.

But it just ain't so.

Is it really a threat to suggest that maybe your strange Uncle Fred ought not to have a military style weapon? If you feel the need for nine millimeter reassurance, maybe fifteen rounds ought to be enough? Are these unreasonable questions? Or can our concerns be dismissed if we are not familiar with configurations of bayonet attachments? Need I be an oncologist to despise cancer? Do I need to know the precise definition of the weapon I don't ever want to see?

Let us resolve to be less fearful of each other. And if we can't quite manage that, let's do our best to pretend. The only way to kill a demon is to starve it to death.

Happy New Year.

So instead of looking at the data and realizing that bans don't work and thus directing your energy towards solutions that may actually work you will toss political capital and a large amount of money to ineffective legislation because you find the people who you wrongfully imagine as the only ones who use the right as being distasteful?

If you despise cancer find a fix for cancer, If you know cauterization of cancer caused ulcers doesn't improve the survivability of the patient you stop doing it and find something that does work.

If you despise homicide work towards a fix and stop passing legislation which only makes you feel good about yourself when the people continue to be murdered.

By your arguments seems to be that what you despise is not the death of people but the demographic groups you view as being gun owners. Does name calling and debasing people really do anything to further your cause?

[China Guy]

Come back when you actually are willing to discuss specifics. You asked about a country where gun bans have worked, I give you England, you give me Vermont, Australia, the US, Englsih data that's a decade out of date, but still won't discuss the English experience.

glad you got religion. this thread has been an eye opener.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Come back when you actually are willing to discuss specifics. You asked about a country where gun bans have worked, I give you England, you give me Vermont, Australia, the US, Englsih data that's a decade out of date, but still won't discuss the English experience.

glad you got religion. this thread has been an eye opener.

No you have not shown that the gun ban in England worked.

Murder rates when UP directly after the ban when they were dropping in the rest of the developed world, they did come down again but you have provided ZERO cites as to why there should even be a correlation let alone a causative effect of the legislation.

Homicide rates were dropping everywhere in the developing world, you have provided NOTHING that even suggests England's gun ban had anything to do with that.

The fact that you just ignored real data proves you have no desire to talk about reality and facts.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So, if those weapons were to disappear, along with whatever threat to the lives of innocents they may or may not represent, something of value would be lost, either to you or society as a whole? Is that it? What thing of value would that be?

Generations of tradition, millions of hours annually of safe and fun recreation.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by JXJohns

Generations of tradition, millions of hours annually of safe and fun recreation.

Unless we're talking about a total gun ban, I don't see where either of these comes into play.

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Unless we're talking about a total gun ban, I don't see where either of these comes into play.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

So, if those weapons were to disappear...

I thought that was the point of the question. If it was directed solely at AW's my reply remains the same however.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I think it would be a stretch to say there are "generations of tradition" centering around private ownership of assault weapons (however they're defined).

[JXJohns]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

I think it would be a stretch to say there are "generations of tradition" centering around private ownership of assault weapons (however they're defined).

I'm sure that you think so. Regardless, several generations is accurate.

[Bone]

Any discussion about gun laws - and any laws for that matter, should be one of costs and benefits. Personally the the freedom to own and carry far outweigh any societal costs in and of itself. Regarding so called assault weapons - the societal costs in crime and homicides are quite low and the costs in both enforcement and the loss of individual liberty and enjoyment are substantial.

However when ElvisL1ivs and China Guy are focusing on the 12,000 gun related deaths per year and asserting that increasing restrictions on gun ownership would reduce that figure, it completely ignores the other side of the equation. Defensive Gun Use (DGU) in the US is quite high.

Here's a thread where it was discussed at length, though it's quite long. From that thread, 13 studies that were conducted to estimate the number of DGU/year, with 12 producing an actual numerical estimate. It's arguable the precise level, but even taking the lowest value from the DOJ study it's safe to say it's north of 100,000 incidents per year. Any talk of the number of deaths should also consider the number of lives saved. That number is not insignificant.

[XT]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Come back when you actually are willing to discuss specifics. You asked about a country where gun bans have worked, I give you England, you give me Vermont, Australia, the US, Englsih data that's a decade out of date, but still won't discuss the English experience.

glad you got religion. this thread has been an eye opener.

I'm sorry, but you didn't demonstrate that the gun ban in England was the sole or even primary factor in the decline in their gun murder rate, since it's clear from the cites provided to you that this was a general trend that had nothing to do with gun control in several western nations with widely varied stances on personal firearms ownership. I'm unsure why you are missing that point, as it seems pretty obvious.

[China Guy]

Sheesh, trying to get a point to even discuss.

1. Here's data that's more than 10 years old that shows after the gun ban in England murders/firearm murders going up
2. Counterpoint that the most recent 10 years that shows after the gun ban in England, murders/firearm deaths went down
3. Counter counter point: doesn't count because you didn't prove a causative effect

Well, bugger me with a fishfork, data and assumptions are valid when they support gun ownership, and a far higher bar for even a discussion if it's the opposite view.

There is a correlation in England. Whether it is significant or causative is something that is up for debate. Not sure why this point is so difficult to accept?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by China Guy

Sheesh, trying to get a point to even discuss.

1. Here's data that's more than 10 years old that shows after the gun ban in England murders/firearm murders going up
2. Counterpoint that the most recent 10 years that shows after the gun ban in England, murders/firearm deaths went down
3. Counter counter point: doesn't count because you didn't prove a causative effect

Well, bugger me with a fishfork, data and assumptions are valid when they support gun ownership, and a far higher bar for even a discussion if it's the opposite view.

There is a correlation in England. Whether it is significant or causative is something that is up for debate. Not sure why this point is so difficult to accept?

No, the correlation would have started to happen in 1997 if it was causative not in 2001. But heck...can you even provide a UK government source that claims that the law caused the downturn in the homicide rate?

In a "Cite" from Really Not All That Bright in another thread it seems that NO actions of the Police or Government were the cause of the downturn in the homicide rate.

Statisticians say the figures broadly mirror reductions elsewhere in the developed world, so it would be unfair of politicians, police or doctors here to claim the credit for a phenomenon that appears to be driven by something more fundamental.

Nevertheless, officials believe that efforts to bear down on domestic and family-related violence, which account for two-thirds of killings, is a key factor in the homicide fall.

Police and probation officers have made huge strides in recent years in identifying people who are at risk of attack and ensuring violent criminals are monitored more effectively.

But it is quite clear that "Evidence" is not what your argument is based on so I don't know how we can have a debate if it is purely dogma.

[XT]

Originally Posted by China Guy

1. Here's data that's more than 10 years old that shows after the gun ban in England murders/firearm murders going up

Sort of like the data showing the murder rate in the US and in other countries was going up...until it started to turn down around the same time. So, did the gun ban in England have a global effect, or are you willing to consider that there might have been other factors involved? Again, this point seems pretty easy to grasp, but you don't seem to either grasp it or, more likely, want to grasp it.

2. Counterpoint that the most recent 10 years that shows after the gun ban in England, murders/firearm deaths went down

And, interestingly enough, they went down outside of England in many countries as well. The US is at a 30 year low...and we didn't have a gun ban. Did England's gun ban effect the US as well?

3. Counter counter point: doesn't count because you didn't prove a causative effect

Or, could be that you have been unable to establish a firm correlation, since as noted, the murder rate dropped in more than just England, and seemingly had nothing to do with a gun ban, since here in the US there was no such ban.

Well, bugger me with a fishfork, data and assumptions are valid when they support gun ownership, and a far higher bar for even a discussion if it's the opposite view.

I'd say that the data shows what it shows, and has little do do with a pro or anti view on gun ownership.

There is a correlation in England. Whether it is significant or causative is something that is up for debate. Not sure why this point is so difficult to accept?

No, you are saying there is such a correlation, but you've yet to demonstrate it. The fact that the murder rate went down shortly after a ban in England is interesting, but looking at the bigger picture, which you seem to refuse to want to do, shows that this was a general trend in many if not most of the western world at around the same period of time, and outside of England had nothing to do with gun bans.

[elucidator]

Would it even be possible to have data what would conclusively prove any such effect? Aren't they all vulnerable to a post hoc egro propter hoc criticism?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Would it even be possible to have data what would conclusively prove any such effect? Aren't they all vulnerable to a post hoc egro propter hoc criticism?

Is anyone asking for conclusive evidence? I thought we were asking for anything that shows a suggestive correlation.

Plus the criticism isn't "after this, therefore because of this" You and china have failed to provide ANY coincidental correlation let alone any suggestive correlative cites.

But at least something like this seat belts usage vs. auto fatalities would be something to at least show it had a possible effect.

As of this moment you haven't provided anything to show that type of relation at all as for lawful civilian ownership of firearms and homicide.

[XT]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Would it even be possible to have data what would conclusively prove any such effect?

I don't see why not, if such a correlation actually exists. But considering the fact that there was a general downward trend in murder rates across multiple countries that all started around that same time period I'd say that there is evidence that other factors were in play besides a gun ban in England.

Aren't they all vulnerable to a post hoc egro propter hoc criticism?

I don't believe that this is the criticism being made.

ETA: Or what RA said.

[elucidator]

....As of this moment you haven't provided anything to show that type of relation at all as for lawful civilian ownership of firearms and homicide.

Haven't tried to. Be kinda stupid, wouldn't it, if I believed that such a causative would be nearly impossible to prove?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Haven't tried to. Be kinda stupid, wouldn't it, if I believed that such a causative would be nearly impossible to prove?

So you are saying it would be impossible to demonstrate or that the effects would be impossible to observe?

How do you tell if these laws work then? Should we toss some chicken bones on a table or should we just take you on your word that the effects are real despite being non-observable?

Or are you saying Gun control is so ineffective that it would not cause an observable acceleration in a down trend in homicide or reduce an up trend? What value would it provide it that is true?

Or are you arguing that your belief is based on faith and facts and reality have no bearing on it?

[elucidator]

No, no, no, and no.

...So you are saying it would be impossible to demonstrate or that the effects would be impossible to observe?....

Don't know. As I sit here, I can't think of any such statistical analysis that could prove anything, at least not to the extent of convincing the fervently devoted. We have lots of such studies that could be fairly said to be indicative, but not conclusive.

...How do you tell if these laws work then? Should we toss some chicken bones on a table or should we just take you on your word that the effects are real despite being non-observable?...

My word? What does my credibility or lack thereof have to do with it? The evidence is conclusive or it isn't, whether I use it to bolster my case, or you do, or that guy over there.

"Chicken bones"? What?

...Or are you saying Gun control is so ineffective that it would not cause an observable acceleration in a down trend in homicide or reduce an up trend? What value would it provide it that is true?...

I don't know, I would be happy to entertain a suggestion as to how that might be done. Simply because I don't know how it could be done does not mean it can't be done. I cannot parse the last sentence there, so no comment is offered.

...Or are you arguing that your belief is based on faith and facts and reality have no bearing on it?...

More of an accusation that a question, isn't it? Answer, nonetheless, is no.

By the way, ever find that quote?

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

No, no, no, and no.
Don't know. As I sit here, I can't think of any such statistical analysis that could prove anything, at least not to the extent of convincing the fervently devoted. We have lots of such studies that could be fairly said to be indicative, but not conclusive.

How about any evidence that can SHOW (not prove) that it has a positive effect? Especially to a Pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-women's rights and atheist liberal? (A.K.A. Me)

Originally Posted by elucidator

My word? What does my credibility or lack thereof have to do with it? The evidence is conclusive or it isn't, whether I use it to bolster my case, or you do, or that guy over there.

"Chicken bones"? What?

The only thing you have given is that homicide rates are lower in England and that they went down a random number of years without explaining why they would go down more (or less) in similar countries with less gun control and more guns during the same time period.

The "Chicken bones" statement was a reference to a form of divination where bones are tossed and read to answer various questions.

Originally Posted by elucidator

I don't know, I would be happy to entertain a suggestion as to how that might be done. Simply because I don't know how it could be done does not mean it can't be done. I cannot parse the last sentence there, so no comment is offered.


More of an accusation that a question, isn't it? Answer, nonetheless, is no.

By the way, ever find that quote?

How about finding a cite saying "violent crime dropped by 50% faster in England after the ban than in similar countries during the same time period"

Without any realistic evidence or cites to demonstrate that gun control may have reduced the homicide rate what else am I to call it but a belief based on faith, we all have many of those no matter how rational they claim to be.

And what quote? or are going going back to your AMA Op-Ed cite that really didn't relate to the effectiveness of gun control in the UK at all.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

How about any evidence that can SHOW (not prove) that it has a positive effect? Especially to a Pro-gay rights, pro-choice, pro-legalization, pro-women's rights and atheist liberal? (A.K.A. Me)..

I am not trying to present gun control in a positive light with this line of inquiry. To oversimplify, I think that the factors that go into the whole question of gun violence are too complex for conclusive proof, of the sort required to completely reverse one's opinion, regardless of what that opinion might be.

And while I heartily approve of your positions, so? I share those opinions, but it doesn't seem to make me more credible in your eyes. So why should it make you more credible in mine?

...The only thing you have given is that homicide rates are lower in England and that they went down a random number of years without explaining why they would go down more (or less) in similar countries with less gun control and more guns during the same time period....

I have offered nothing whatsoever about England.

...The "Chicken bones" statement was a reference to a form of divination where bones are tossed and read to answer various questions....

I understood the connotation, I don't see the necessity. Droll humor, I'll assume.

...How about finding a cite saying "violent crime dropped by 50% faster in England after the ban than in similar countries during the same time period"...

If I had one, and had solid reasons to believe it valid, I would offer it. If I found one that said precisely the opposite, I would look for online criticism of it, but would still offer it.

...Without any realistic evidence or cites to demonstrate that gun control may have reduced the homicide rate what else am I to call it but a belief based on faith, we all have many of those no matter how rational they claim to be....

Maybe, maybe not. If one cannot have irrefutable and conclusive evidence, one is still entitled to rely on a preponderance of evidence, an estimation of how likely something is rather than how certain. That does not make it "faith-based" or irrational.

...And what quote? or are going going back to your AMA Op-Ed cite that really didn't relate to the effectiveness of gun control in the UK at all....

Your post #277. "You are the one calling for guns to be banned..."

Me no say that. Me say "Where me say? Me no say! You show me where me say!" You no say. You no got, is why.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by elucidator

I am not trying to present gun control in a positive light with this line of inquiry. To oversimplify, I think that the factors that go into the whole question of gun violence are too complex for conclusive proof, of the sort required to completely reverse one's opinion, regardless of what that opinion might be.

And while I heartily approve of your positions, so? I share those opinions, but it doesn't seem to make me more credible in your eyes. So why should it make you more credible in mine?



I have offered nothing whatsoever about England.


I understood the connotation, I don't see the necessity. Droll humor, I'll assume.


If I had one, and had solid reasons to believe it valid, I would offer it. If I found one that said precisely the opposite, I would look for online criticism of it, but would still offer it.



Maybe, maybe not. If one cannot have irrefutable and conclusive evidence, one is still entitled to rely on a preponderance of evidence, an estimation of how likely something is rather than how certain. That does not make it "faith-based" or irrational.



Your post #277. "You are the one calling for guns to be banned..."

Me no say that. Me say "Where me say? Me no say! You show me where me say!" You no say. You no got, is why.

OK, so you are only in this thread to posit some Op-Ed piece as a grand conspiracy of the gun rights "lobby"?

If not what forms of gun control are you for so you can't just question all my cites and back out of the debate when you lose?

[rat avatar]

My preliminary opinion here is that the "gun lobby" and/or "pro-gun Congressman" (I hardly care which, as they are interchangeable...) stifled the research by a respected research institution. I leap nimbly to the follow up that they did it because they were pretty sure they wouldn't like the results. Which strongly suggests that they know what those results would be.

And there is your quote...your grand conspiracy that ONLY EXISTS in the US according to your linked Op-Ed.

So is does this grand facade apply in England and Australia, is this why you argue it is impossible to know if gun control actually even does anything?

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

The only thing you have given is that homicide rates are lower in England and that they went down a random number of years without explaining why they would go down more (or less) in similar countries with less gun control and more guns during the same time period.

If I may jump in here, I think this statement illustrates well what elucidator says about the complex factors needed for conclusive proof regarding gun control. In what way were the countries you allude to "similar"? Age distribution? Ethnic backgrounds? Education level? Prescription drug addiction levels? What? Were there perhaps different reasons why the rates went down in other countries not specifically related to gun control? Care to offer a breakdown of the similarities between England and any other of these countries to better illustrate your contention? For all I know, you are completely correct that similar declines in homicides for other countries is terrific evidence that gun control had no effect. If for one would want a lot more evidence to convince me that England's laws were feckless.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

If I may jump in here, I think this statement illustrates well what elucidator says about the complex factors needed for conclusive proof regarding gun control. In what way were the countries you allude to "similar"? Age distribution? Ethnic backgrounds? Education level? Prescription drug addiction levels? What? Were there perhaps different reasons why the rates went down in other countries not specifically related to gun control? Care to offer a breakdown of the similarities between England and any other of these countries to better illustrate your contention? For all I know, you are completely correct that similar declines in homicides for other countries is terrific evidence that gun control had no effect. If for one would want a lot more evidence to convince me that England's laws were feckless.

Turn it around then...in what way does the UK's gun ban give us any data on what a gun ban in the US would be like? See, that's the argument that keeps being brought up...basically 'well, they have a gun ban in the UK and it's lowered their violent crime using guns, so it would do the same thing in the US'. To which the reply is that crime in many western nations, including the US has gone down during the same period of time, despite differences in gun bans or gun regulations or gun availability. That seems to indicate that something else was happening during that time period, unless you want to say that it was a complete coincidence or that the UK is so isolated from the rest of the world that the sole or even primary cause of THEIR unique drop in crime was the gun ban, and it's just coincidence that similar things were happening in other countries vaguely out there in The World beyond.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by XT

Turn it around then...in what way does the UK's gun ban give us any data on what a gun ban in the US would be like? See, that's the argument that keeps being brought up...basically 'well, they have a gun ban in the UK and it's lowered their violent crime using guns, so it would do the same thing in the US'.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking for rat avatar to back up a statement with more details.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking for rat avatar to back up a statement with more details.

Sorry...I'll leave it to him then. He seems to be doing a pretty good job so far, from my perspective at least.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking for rat avatar to back up a statement with more details.

I am not the one making the claim that "less guns= less crime" I said there is no obvious correlation between that number of legal firearms in private hands and the number of homicides.

That hypothesis, that less gun equals less crime, is falsified by the lack of that vital predicted observation in any empirical data.

If you can provide a cite ANYWHERE where gun control works in an observable way I may be convinced that it is worth perusing.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

I am not the one making the claim that "less guns= less crime"

Fair enough, but I'm not making that claim either.

In any case, are you not claiming that even if homicide rates declined in England, gun controls were not responsibe, because homicide rates declined in other similar countries? I contend that this says nothing of relevance without specifics on the similarities/dissimilarities of the countries involved. It's too broad a conclusion to reach.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead

Fair enough, but I'm not making that claim either.

In any case, are you not claiming that even if homicide rates declined in England, gun controls were not responsibe, because homicide rates declined in other similar countries? I contend that this says nothing of relevance without specifics on the similarities/dissimilarities of the countries involved. It's too broad a conclusion to reach.

Why rally against me asking for evidence for those who are then?

I provided a quote in a cite up thread where statisticians said it NO actions during that time period by the British government could really be claimed a causal correlation.

They are the ones to do that work and with as large as the Anti-gun lobby is why can you not link to a single study that does show why the drop should be attributed to the legislation?

But yes, if you are going to claim that for some reason the murder rate decrease in England was due to a gun ban when it the gun ownership rate was irreverent in the drop of the murder rate in almost the entire 1st world you need to provide a reason.

Otherwise you are cherry picking, a fallacy.

[Fiddle Peghead]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

They are the ones to do that work and with as large as the Anti-gun lobby is why can you not link to a single study that does show why the drop should be attributed to the legislation?

Because I'm not saying the drop was because of the legislation.

But yes, if you are going to claim that for some reason the murder rate decrease in England was due to a gun ban...

Which I'm not saying either. Might have been. I don't know! Look, I got into this merely to agree with elucidator's point about the complexities involved in discussing and analyzing gun violence and gun control, no to disagree with you. As I said, it very well might be the case that gun control in England had nothing to do with anything.