Individual anecdotes are pretty worthless in proving a point.
Sure, dead is dead. So, arent you just as dead if stabbed or poisoned or bludgeoned or bombed? So why compare “gun deaths”?
In any case, “gun deaths” arent tracked anywhere near as well as murders.
Yes, but since we’re discussing gun control, I’m not sure what they have to do with anything. I’ve shown a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and reduced firearm deaths, which was simply to counter your cherry picked data which you used to attempt to show that restrictions don’t affect the outcomes.
Excellent. As soon as you provide me with better and credible alternate sources for firearm fatalities, I’ll happily revisit the data to see if anything changes. In the meantime, I’ll stick with the data I have.
Again, since you keep ignoring it, does the data show that there is a strong correlation between tighter restrictions and lower firearm related fatalities?
No you havent. You are using bad data from a bad site. I mean, it uses how many gun laws there are, as opposed to how strict they are, to get their numbers- totally bogus. Here, lets use a very biased (but anti-gun) site:
I was comparing overall murder rates (from FBI data) vs gun laws. There is no correlation.
If you really want, we can compare gun murder rates vs gun laws.
Ok, so DC has very tough gun laws but by far the highest gun murder rate.
Maryland has the 4th highest gun murders but it rated A-.
On the other end, you have Vermont has the v lowest gun murder rate- but it rates a D.
NH has the second lowest gun murder rate but it get a F.
North Dakota? F rating, but 4th lowest.
Your scale shows them towards the top end.
Mass is right in the middle murder0wise, but your cite shows it at the bottom.
CA has just about the tightest state laws, but is 12th highest in gun murders.
See? No correlation at all. Sure there are states with low gun murder rates and tight laws, but over all, no real correlation. Even gun control promoters agree that gun control doesnt work in the USA- which is why they want more of it.
See this article why gun control didnt work in Chicago? Fact Check: Is Chicago Proof That Gun Laws Don't Work? : NPR
Only way you can get a correlation is to mess around with numbers like gun suicides, which are very poorly reported, and then rank states by number of laws.
Giffords of course does similar- it ranks Vermont “Gun Death Rank: 34 OF 50 STATES” while Vermont is the safest state in the Union- by far.
So, there no correlation when you compare murder rates- which are very solid and FBI data. If you go to gun murders- which are a little less solid (not as well reported)- still no correlations…
But when you make shit up- voila! you can get any correlation you like.
This cite agrees: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gun-control-is-a-fantasy-start-a-realistic-conversation-about-preventing-school-massacres
It* is fantasy as policy because stricter gun control, within the limits of what is considered reasonable today (i.e., anything short of a total ban on sales or even gun confiscation), does not guarantee or even statistically correlate with lower gun homicide rates in any given state. This fact merits your time for some research, but to give just one prominent example from the FBI data, Texas and California have comparable gun homicide rates each year (they were actually tied in 2015). If gun control were effective, that is not what you’d expect in the nation’s two most populous states with two of the most different gun policies. And that is by no means the only observation of its kind that you’ll take away from the FBI’s annual numbers.*
Here’s a biased pro gun article on why gun control doesnt work:https://www.dailywire.com/news/7872/7-facts-gun-crime-show-gun-control-doesnt-work-aaron-bandler
It does no such thing. It separates gun laws into different categories and subcategories and then checks a box if it applies to that state. It’s extremely well normalized. Feel free to share any actual issues with the data and I’ll look into it.
Really? This again? Even if (and there are too many other factors, such as population density to know for sure) murder wasn’t affected by gun restrictions, there is still a strong correlation between firearm restrictions and firearm deaths. If tighter controls had zero effect on murder rates, but reduced suicide and firearm accidents, I’m still on board.
Skipping the rest of your “only murder matters” bullshit, as I’m tired of arguing over cherry picked shit that I addressed in my very first post in this thread, especially since you have refused to answer the single question that I keep asking.
That’s a big “IF”
America has more privately owned guns than the rest of the OECD combined and yet our suicide rate is below average for OECD nations (if you exclude countries like Korea and Japan, the suicide rate raises to average). It is significantly below average if you count all countries.
Suicide correlates much more to weather (places with longer winters), rural areas (places where people can become easily isolated), and this might be controversial but high catholic cultures or populations tend to have lower suicide rates.
I suppose there are ways to explain away the fact that America is awash in guns but only has an average suicide rate but the most obvious explanation is that guns don’t have the ability to make people commit suicide any more than tall buildings, ropes, poison or high speed trains.
Obviously the availability of guns makes accidents but how many people do you think that accounts for per year?
Simply put the correlation between lax gun laws and gun deaths is almost entirely driven by suicides. If you don’t want to acknowledge this then you are only fooling yourself. Our suicide rate is dead average for an OECD country, so unless you think our equilibrium suicide rate would be significantly lower than other OECD countries, guns are not increasing our suicide rate significantly and the correlation you see disappears.
Murders are not all that matter. Accidental deaths also matter. This is one of the clear costs in society of having guns. An accidental gun death would not be replaced by an accidental knife death is guns were not present. A gun suicide could very well be replaced by another form of suicide. A gun murder may or may not be replaced by another form of murder.
In states where gun laws have gotten stricter, the increase in gun laws did not led to lower murder rates with any consistency. On the contrary, states where gun laws were relaxed often enjoyed lower murder rates. There could a chicken/egg problem here and the relaxed gun laws may be the result of lower murder rates and stricter gun laws might be the result of higher murder rates and not the other way around.
Damuri Ajashi, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say, so I can’t really respond to your post. You seem to say suicides rates aren’t correlated with gun restrictions and then you say the correlation between restrictions and deaths is almost solely suicides.
Huh?
I believe;
He’s saying the correlation is driven basically by the method of choice in suicides In places with relaxed gun laws
Wherein the actual suicide rate doesn’t change significantly just the involvement of guns
I agree. If abortion was not an issue, it would move part of the electorate. It would deprive the republicans of a important issue with evangelicals, and Catholics. But a lot of folks in my rural area were republicans long before abortion became a issue.
I’ll let him speak for himself, but if that is indeed what he’s saying, he’s going to need to bring some proof.
We do understand those rural white voters the thread headline talks about don’t *care *about epidemiological statistics regarding modalities of gun deaths, right?
You could conceivably sell them on reasonable gun control measures, but only if we could absolutely convince them that it (a) will *not *affect them in any way, but only the “bad people”; and (b) absolutely, positively, definitely will not, ever, go any further than that. We can’t. 'cause there’ll always be some smart aleck genius with a platform calling for more.
What makes this voting block amenable to the conservative fantasy of bringing back the old times is the appeal to: “you don’t have to change the way *you *live and what you expect from life, nor have society stop enforcing your vision of what’s right and wrong, because of something that outsiders have decided is better for you”. They see liberal/progressive proposals, and even some neoconservative ones such as foreign involvement and free global trade, as we telling them to “take this medicine, it’s good for you, we know better.” And unless we can show them immediate results that make them be *and *feel better, they’ll resist. The other side at least makes them *feel *better now, and they are at a point where they’ll take that.
I don’t think I’ve really seen it said better.
I’d add that there is a lot of personal freedom
and privacy that comes with rural areas.
I can run an air compressor at 2am if I feel like it. Im not worried about what will the neighbors say if the lawn goes a couple days too long.
You won’t hear 12 people’s opinions on what kind of flowers you planted. Nobody cares where you park your car. A lot less shared space with some jackass wanting to be the one who makes the rules about it. etc.
Big government is perceived as federal involvement in your personal life , which goes directly against one of the biggest things people like about being rural.
It really doesn’t matter whether the proposal is good , bad or neutral.
For instance;
Laws limiting the size of soda servings are going to be seen as ridiculously out of bounds for government involvement. Yet they garnish support in liberal areas because well, " liberals " ironically, like to tell people around them what to do, down the littlest detail.
This would never, ever, fly in a rural area.
Framing such a policy in a more generalized manner that leaves choices would get less pushback.
Taxing oversized sodas to sponsor gym memberships or school sports or health education wouldn’t get as much pushback.
Japan.
Right, new gun laws would be Ok, as long as they dont think their guns will be threatened. And since they *know *that they are honest god fearing Americans- their logic is not really bad.
Do we really want guns laws that make it harder for honest citizens to have guns? Well, sure a few gun haters do. But in general, most people want guns laws that stop bad people from having guns, right?
So, sure, better ID checks are Ok, since *their *checks with come back fine. Ban bump stocks since *they *dont use them. And so forth.
It’s a little selfish logic but it’s not bad logic.
WTF?
If we’re just tossing out random place names, Barbados.
In the subthread you’re responding to “more likely to be racist” did NOT mean “more likely than 50%”; it meant “more likely than the general population.”
But you do have a point. Probability problems have to be tackled with care. Even experts can sometimes fall for things like Simpson’s Paradox. But in the relevant subthread we were dealing with a guy who didn’t understand even the basics.
Out of the 400 million civilian guns in America, most have not been used to commit murder! Whippeee? :rolleyes:
In my country, ‘Sensible restrictions’ ended up as ‘Turn them all in, Mister and Mrs Britain’.
Wrong, there is a consistent correlation between access to guns and their involvement in suicides.
There is no consistent correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership.
The modality is all that consistently correlates.
Japan is the proof that gun laws do not necessarily produce low suicide rates. Their rate is quite high- higher than the USA- and with just about the most restrictive gun laws.
There are other nations, also, similar.
Right- more guns do not mean more suicides. More guns just means more gun suicides.
I’m glad you brought data to back that up. Oh, you didn’t?
I did.
I’ll let you and DrDeth tell us if that relationship is based on murders, suicides, accidents, or some combination of the above.
