Here’s data that’s more than 10 years old that shows after the gun ban in England murders/firearm murders going up
Counterpoint that the most recent 10 years that shows after the gun ban in England, murders/firearm deaths went down
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.
Here’s data that’s more than 10 years old that shows after the gun ban in England murders/firearm murders going up
[/QUOTE]
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.
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?
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.
I’d say that the data shows what it shows, and has little do do with a pro or anti view on gun ownership.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t believe that this is the criticism being made.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
