# On an assault weapon ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469 "2016-06-15T22:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 31
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/601 "2016-07-10T15:07:03Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Again, there are some who say that the more people who carry guns, the safer society would be. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I expect there would be fewer armed robberies, muggings and rapes, but more fistfights escalating into gunfights. I suppose overall, I’d say maybe a \*little \*safer. But not significantly. > [@davidm](#): > > I expect that there would be many more arguments escalating to death; many more deadly road rage incidents[sup] **1** [/sup]; many more incidents of people being shot for ringing doorbells, being wrongly suspected of being a burglar or a mugger, or being suspiciously black; and many more suicides or combination murder suicides.[sup] **2** [/sup] > > As far as armed robberies, I suspect you’d end up with lots of shootouts in stores with people (not always the bad guys) killed as opposed to money taken and bad guys caught later or insurance paying off. In fact robberies in general, rather than starting with “stick em up” may start with killing the victim before they even know anything’s happening[sup] **3** [/sup]. 1. Road rage and arguments escalating into homicide were arguments made against Shall Issue carry; it just didn’t happen. 2. Since we’re talking about carry, I don’t know if it would be relevant to guns in private residences (which are already far more common than public carry). 3. I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t make sense to me. It postulates that faced with an armed populace, robbers are: (a.) not going to be in the least deterred by the prison risk raised to a 25 to life sentence or the death penalty; and (b.)the public will just have to passively suffer this tidal wave of murder without response, because robbers gonna’ rob and nothing will change that?!? Many armed robbers are essentially bluffing- they know people aren’t just going to hand over their money, so they have to present a threat, and think guns are a magic wand that make people obey. And if there really was a huge increase in the murder rate by habitual criminals, society wouldn’t suffer it; the death penalty would be rigorously employed, and you wouldn’t have the situation now where after years of appeals a token handful are executed. If the police wouldn’t or couldn’t handle the problem, vigilantes would. Just on a side note, the idea that victims must remained unarmed so they don’t “force” criminals to resort to deadly measures is absolutely repugnant. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/602 "2016-07-11T01:29:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > 1. Road rage and arguments escalating into homicide were arguments made against Shall Issue carry; it just didn’t happen. > > 2. Since we’re talking about carry, I don’t know if it would be relevant to guns in private residences (which are already far more common than public carry). > > 3. I’ve heard this before and it doesn’t make sense to me. It postulates that faced with an armed populace, robbers are: (a.) not going to be in the least deterred by the prison risk raised to a 25 to life sentence or the death penalty; and (b.)the public will just have to passively suffer this tidal wave of murder without response, because robbers gonna’ rob and nothing will change that?!? > > Many armed robbers are essentially bluffing- they know people aren’t just going to hand over their money, so they have to present a threat, and think guns are a magic wand that make people obey. And if there really was a huge increase in the murder rate by habitual criminals, society wouldn’t suffer it; the death penalty would be rigorously employed, and you wouldn’t have the situation now where after years of appeals a token handful are executed. If the police wouldn’t or couldn’t handle the problem, vigilantes would. > > Just on a side note, the idea that victims must remained unarmed so they don’t “force” criminals to resort to deadly measures is absolutely repugnant. I was responding to a discussion about whether or not an increase in guns would lead to a safer society or a less safe society. So we weren’t discussing the number of guns currently on the street but rather the effects a significant increase in that number would have, therefore whether or not it’s currently considered a problem misses the point. That said, it would be interesting to see some reliable statistics about any changes in things like road rage shootings that occurred after liberalization of carry laws, but I’m not sure that such statistics are available. And it’s only “repugnant” if it results in more innocent deaths, so calling it that doesn’t win the argument because it’s assuming that you’ve already won it. I believe that’s called “begging the question”. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/603 "2016-07-11T01:36:44Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I agree, but there ARE countries where there is strict regulation of guns. Japan and England come to mind. And there are other countries where strict regulations on guns HAVEN’T curbed death due to guns. Yes. Mexico for one. > [@](#): > > Which country would you like to be compared to? Who gives a shit. > [@](#): > > Maybe we should do studies to see which number is higher, instead of relying on instinct? Studies that show data instead of anecdotes that support either side? I agree. So far every study that has ever addressed the issue finds lots and lots of defensive gun uses but cannot tell us which of those defensive gun uses actually prevented a death. A proxy for this has been to gauge the effect of loosening and tightening gun laws and by all accounts the background effects (of a general trend towards lower gun violence) seem to overwhelm the effect of legal ownership of guns. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/604 "2016-07-11T01:42:58Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Well, do you care about _homicide_? Because the US does have a homicide rate significantly higher than any other developed country, despite all the protests of “Ban guns and the bad guys will just use knives / make their own / etc” If you eliminated all gun murders and assumed that those gun murders would not be replaced with murder by other means, we would STILL have an abnormally high murder rate for developed countries. The majority of those murders are either BY people with criminal records or OF people with criminal records. Most of those gun murders are committed by people who would not be deterred because there is a law against owning a gun with a bayonet lug. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/605 "2016-07-11T01:45:59Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > I expect that there would be many more arguments escalating to death; many more deadly road rage incidents; many more incidents of people being shot for ringing doorbells, being wrongly suspected of being a burglar or a mugger, or being suspiciously black; and many more suicides or combination murder suicides. Do you actually know how many people get shot for accidentally ringing the wrong doorbell? Because you have probably read about most of them in the news. > [@](#): > > As far as armed robberies, I suspect you’d end up with lots of shootouts in stores with people (not always the bad guys) killed as opposed to money taken and bad guys caught later or insurance paying off. In fact robberies in general, rather than starting with “stick em up” may start with killing the victim before they even know anything’s happening. And yet this doesn’t seem to happen in states where having a gun is legal any more frequently than having a gun in states where having a gun is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/606 "2016-07-11T02:08:10Z")
In case there was any misunderstanding, when I said “ringing the wrong doorbell” I meant that and similar incidents; basically wrongful attacks by stupid people, usually because someone is black or looks foreign or just doesn’t look right to some idiot. And how often that happens now isn’t the point. The point is that such things would likely increase with increased carry. Doubling the number of cars would likely double the number of traffic accidents. Doubling the number of Zika carrying mosquitoes would likely double the number of Zika cases. And doubling the number of guns would probably double the number of gun deaths. It’s simple math. So the question is, what is the number of innocents killed vs the number of justified shootings? Assuming, reasonably in my mind, that both types would increase by the same amount, then is the current ratio acceptable or not? Do guns save more innocent lives than they take? If not, then increasing the number on the street would probably be a bad idea. If they do, then maybe it wouldn’t be. So, are there reliable statistics to answer this? And “and yet” answers don’t cut it unless they are truly relevant to the question and have good reliable statistics to back them up. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/607 "2016-07-11T03:12:39Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > South Africa, Columbia, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Peru, etc are not "developed countries?:rolleyes::dubious: Yes. For example, in the IMF’s world economic report, 2012, all of the countries on your list were defined as develop **ing** economies. Now, we could probably find some lists of developed countries that maybe include one of the countries on that list (e.g. the CIA world factbook includes South Africa as a developed country). But I think the difficulty of trying to find wealthy countries with comparable murder rates to the US only serves to emphasize how much of an outlier it is. There’s a strong inverse correlation between wealth of a country and murder rate. The US is a big outlier for that, this is very clear. > [@](#): > > Yes, the USA is higher than _Western Europe._ …and Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea… ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/608 "2016-07-11T05:30:11Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > In case there was any misunderstanding, when I said “ringing the wrong doorbell” I meant that and similar incidents; basically wrongful attacks by stupid people, usually because someone is black or looks foreign or just doesn’t look right to some idiot. And how often that happens now isn’t the point. The point is that such things would likely increase with increased carry. Doubling the number of cars would likely double the number of traffic accidents. Doubling the number of Zika carrying mosquitoes would likely double the number of Zika cases. And doubling the number of guns would probably double the number of gun deaths. It’s simple math. > > So the question is, what is the number of innocents killed vs the number of justified shootings? Assuming, reasonably in my mind, that both types would increase by the same amount, then is the current ratio acceptable or not? Do guns save more innocent lives than they take? If not, then increasing the number on the street would probably be a bad idea. If they do, then maybe it wouldn’t be. So, are there reliable statistics to answer this? > > And “and yet” answers don’t cut it unless they are truly relevant to the question and have good reliable statistics to back them up. And yet States that have increased carry rights have not seen this increase that you suspect may occur. And yet every study on defensive gun use approximates large numbers of defensive gun use. EveryonE from the department of justice to criminologists think the number if very high (ranging from 100,000 to as high as a million or more). ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/609 "2016-07-11T15:07:23Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > And doubling the number of guns would probably double the number of gun deaths. It’s simple math. I actually really doubt this is true. I know it seems intuitive, but it’s probably wrong. Guns are owned by roughly 40% of the households in America. When Obama talks gun control and we see a surge in gun purchases, it’s oftentimes people who already have guns buying additional ones. If you just doubled the number of guns, but most of them went to people who already owned guns, I don’t have any reason to think that it would double the number of gun deaths. Now, if instead, you were to double the number of gun-owning households, so that 80% of the country had a gun at home instead of 40%, then you might get closer to doubling the number of gun deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/610 "2016-07-11T15:35:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I actually really doubt this is true. I know it seems intuitive, but it’s probably wrong. Guns are owned by roughly 40% of the households in America. When Obama talks gun control and we see a surge in gun purchases, it’s oftentimes people who already have guns buying additional ones. If you just doubled the number of guns, but most of them went to people who already owned guns, I don’t have any reason to think that it would double the number of gun deaths. Now, if instead, you were to double the number of gun-owning households, so that 80% of the country had a gun at home instead of 40%, then you might get closer to doubling the number of gun deaths. Probably not. If you doubled the number of gun owning households, you would probably double the number of accidental gun deaths. You would might double the number of murders committed by gun owners who were previously law abiding citizens. However, the vast majority of gun murders would still be committed by that small fraction of the population who are not legally allowed to own a gun in the first place. I also highly doubt that our suicide rate would be dramatically affected by an increase in gun ownership rates. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/611 "2016-07-12T02:46:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > However, the vast majority of gun murders would still be committed by that small fraction of the population who are not legally allowed to own a gun in the first place. I also highly doubt that our suicide rate would be dramatically affected by an increase in gun ownership rates. A quick look on google scholar seems to suggest the vast majority of studies on the topic of firearm ownership and suicide find a clear link. Here’s a couple examples: [Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States](http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2007/04000/Household_Firearm_Ownership_and_Rates_of_Suicide.31.aspx): _Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide._ [(Warning: PDF) Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705): _Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it may someday be used in a suicide_ At a quick glance, the same is true of (legal) firearm ownership and homicide, I’ll link that later (I should technically be working right now). ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/612 "2016-07-12T03:10:47Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > A quick look on google scholar seems to suggest the vast majority of studies on the topic of firearm ownership and suicide find a clear link. Here’s a couple examples: > > [Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States](http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2007/04000/Household_Firearm_Ownership_and_Rates_of_Suicide.31.aspx): _Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide._ > > [(Warning: PDF) Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705): _Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it may someday be used in a suicide_ > > At a quick glance, the same is true of (legal) firearm ownership and homicide, I’ll link that later (I should technically be working right now). The question is not if firearms are usable for suicide but if they “cause” more that would not be accomplished if other methods are not available. > [@](#): > > Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide continued along an increasing trend, not decreasing until measures specifically aimed to provide support for those intent on suicide were implemented. But this has been my point in this thread in general, people don’t really care about preventing suicide, they care about passing firearm laws, which cause legislation that is shown to be effective to not be enacted. Correlation does not imply causation, firearms are very effective in ensuring a suicide is successful but that does not mean that they are causative. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/613 "2016-07-12T15:45:54Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The question is not if firearms are usable for suicide but if they “cause” more that would not be accomplished if other methods are not available. Huh? The links I gave were the latter. They were saying there is a statistical correlation between owning firearms and chance of suicide. Not chance of using a gun in suicide. And when you linked your counter example, did you not notice that the vast majority of studies find such a link, particularly in the US? What was your search term in Google scholar? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/614 "2016-07-12T17:06:10Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > A quick look on google scholar seems to suggest the vast majority of studies on the topic of firearm ownership and suicide find a clear link. Here’s a couple examples: > > [Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States](http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2007/04000/Household_Firearm_Ownership_and_Rates_of_Suicide.31.aspx): _Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide._ > > [(Warning: PDF) Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership](http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705): _Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it may someday be used in a suicide_ > > At a quick glance, the same is true of (legal) firearm ownership and homicide, I’ll link that later (I should technically be working right now). Bogus. “Our study was restricted to suicides occurring in the victims home because a previous study has indicated that most suicides committed with guns occur there”. and also think about this- how do they know about guns in the households where the suicide was committed with drugs or other methods? They don’t. How to explain Japan then? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/615 "2016-07-12T18:10:33Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Huh? The links I gave were the latter. They were saying there is a statistical correlation between owning firearms and chance of suicide. Not chance of using a gun in suicide. You seem to be focusing on “other methods” when rat avatar is focusing on the theoretical causal relationship. That causality is critical to any of these studies being persuasive and thus far it is absent. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/616 "2016-07-12T18:31:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Bogus. “Our study was restricted to suicides occurring in the victims home because a previous study has indicated that most suicides committed with guns occur there”. > > and also think about this- how do they know about guns in the households where the suicide was committed with drugs or other methods? They don’t. > > How to explain Japan then? Or most other nations who have suicide rates higher than the US (which comes in middle of the pack wrt developed nations) and have very strict gun controls? That’s the thing about the suicide numbers…they are kind of a sunk cost. If Americans didn’t have guns, it would not mean there would be ~21k less deaths a year (the number of suicide deaths from guns), it would mean that ~21k people would find other methods to kill themselves with instead. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/617 "2016-07-13T18:28:50Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Huh? The links I gave were the latter. They were saying there is a **statistical correlation** between owning firearms and chance of suicide. Not chance of using a gun in suicide. > > And when you linked your counter example, did you not notice that the vast majority of studies find such a link, particularly in the US? What was your search term in Google scholar? (bolding mine) Most of my good research was behind a paywall but note how your cites note an “association”. The fact that your rebuttal claimed a _statistical correlation_, which still does not establish cause, that is why it is called a _correlation_ . There is a statistical correlation between age and your chances of getting chicken pox but the cause is not age. Associations are _unproven links_, and those words were chosen very carefully in your cites. Risk factors are not always relevant and or indicative of a cause despite the general misunderstanding and pop science believe that they do. As the US has not banned guns I am not sure why it is valid to discredit external studies, nor does the fact that studies are not available online. There is a lot of generally accepted science that was discovered before the rise of the Internet publishing. I will dismiss it as special pleading meant to hand wave away evidence that does not fit your arguments narrative. Other posters have pointed out that your cites were flawed they don’t even establish the truth that you are trying to claim but lets address a flawed claim on the science. The fact that Canada(registration) and Australia (confiscation) provide a test showing that significant difference between specified populations to test a _statistical correlation_. They are the Null hypothesis that tests if that correlation is causative. With that evidence, if we are trying to be scientific we must conclude that there are no grounds for believing that there is a relationship between lawful ownership of firearms and the overall suicide rate. This does not mean that the _statistical correlation_ disappears, it still exists. But it does not demonstrate the presence of a causal relationship. The current evidence suggests that banning firearms does not cause the suicide rate to significantly drop because it doesn’t address the reason people are _finding_ a way to kill themselves. Suicide is a complicated problem with many causes, and it will need many solutions. Claiming that banning firearms will significantly help is a classic example of bikeshedding or yak shaving. > [@](#): > > “There may be members of the committee who might fail to distinguish between asbestos and galvanised iron, but every man there knows about coffee – what it is, how it should be made, where it should be bought – and whether indeed it should be bought at all. This item on the agenda will occupy the members for an hour and a quarter, and they will end by asking the secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting.” [Warning PDF](http://sas2.elte.hu/tg/ptorv/Parkinson-s-Law.pdf) Because it is hard to address issues with mental health, loneliness, tolerance, and the ethics of our medical system people tend to obsess about firearms. Unfortunately for those whom will lose their lives we are too distracted to work on what is needed. Because we are unable to comprehend that task we are bikeshedding. We have a task that is more difficult to accomplish than engineering a nuclear power plant so we are wasting all of our time arguing about things we can understand like what color to paint the bike shed. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/618 "2016-07-14T04:04:41Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Most of my good research was behind a paywall but note how your cites note an “association”. > > The fact that your rebuttal claimed a _statistical correlation_, which still does not establish cause, that is why it is called a _correlation_ . There is a statistical correlation between age and your chances of getting chicken pox but the cause is not age. > > Associations are _unproven links_, and those words were chosen very carefully in your cites. Risk factors are not always relevant and or indicative of a cause despite the general misunderstanding and pop science believe that they do. > > As the US has not banned guns I am not sure why it is valid to discredit external studies, nor does the fact that studies are not available online. There is a lot of generally accepted science that was discovered before the rise of the Internet publishing. I will dismiss it as special pleading meant to hand wave away evidence that does not fit your arguments narrative. > > Other posters have pointed out that your cites were flawed they don’t even establish the truth that you are trying to claim but lets address a flawed claim on the science. > > The fact that Canada(registration) and Australia (confiscation) provide a test showing that significant difference between specified populations to test a _statistical correlation_. They are the Null hypothesis that tests if that correlation is causative. > > With that evidence, if we are trying to be scientific we must conclude that there are no grounds for believing that there is a relationship between lawful ownership of firearms and the overall suicide rate. This does not mean that the _statistical correlation_ disappears, it still exists. But it does not demonstrate the presence of a causal relationship. Interesting rant, but I never claimed a causal relationship. I was arguing against the notion that massively increasing the number of households with guns would not affect the suicide rate. Given the strong correlation, I find that unlikely. But no, of course I’m not saying double the number of households with guns, double the suicide rate. Nor remove all guns, suicide rate will be zero. Now when it comes to homicide rate, I think the data is much clearer, and I think does suggest that if you could magically remove all guns (yes, I’m saying “magically” as I accept that’s not a possibility for the US) the homicide rate would fall significantly. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/619 "2016-07-14T17:31:54Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Interesting rant, but I never claimed a causal relationship. > I was arguing against the notion that massively increasing the number of households with guns would not affect the suicide rate. > Given the strong correlation, I find that unlikely. There would probably be SOME effect, just like there would probably be some effect if we made other potential methods of suicide more available. It all depends on how much you want to baby-proof the world to protect the general public from themselves. > [@](#): > > But no, of course I’m not saying double the number of households with guns, double the suicide rate. Nor remove all guns, suicide rate will be zero. > > Now when it comes to homicide rate, I think the data is much clearer, and I think does suggest that if you could magically remove all guns (yes, I’m saying “magically” as I accept that’s not a possibility for the US) the homicide rate would fall significantly. I think we can agree that it would fall, I don’t know by how much. We are by all accounts a pretty violent and murderous nation. Our homicide non-gun homicide rate would still put us above average among wealthy industrialized nations. There would likely be a significant replacement effect. Things like fencing and knife fighting would probably be a lot more popular but its hard to fence your way through a locked door and there would probably be fewer inadvertent murders of 2 year olds during drive by stabbings. Korea has a real ban on firearms that they enforced by confiscating all guns during the military dictatorship period (when they used to violently suppress the civilian population). The criminal and organized crime members frequently fight with kitchen knives, hatchets, baseball bats, and not a lot of people die. But as things are, I think we should have access to whatever regular police have access to. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469/620 "2016-07-14T18:00:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mijin;19475896 Now when it comes to homicide rate, I think the data is much clearer, and I think does suggest that if you could magically remove all guns (yes, I’m saying “magically” as I accept that’s not a possibility for the US) the homicide rate would fall significantly.[/QUOTE] Police would die in droves. Some villages in Alaska would starve. Bank robbery and such like would increase as armed guards would have nitesticks and mace. There’d be a huge push for crossbow and sword registration\> “They are meant for one thing and one thing only, to kill, _kill_,\*\* KILL\*\*!!!” “No one needs a sword longer than 12” or with a basket hilt, those are assault swords." [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-an-assault-weapon-ban/757469.md?page=32)