Hey, we Americans are great at going half way around the world and killing brown people.
And do you agree that many of these shootings were nothing like Sandy hook where 24 children died or Oregon where one child died. In fact I would suggest that when people think of school shootings, they think of school children being shot.
I thought we agreed that the use of the phrase without the caveat and explanation was misleading. Now are we saying that you can simply say that there have been 74 school shootings since Newtown and its not misleading (perhaps not intentionally so but misleading nonetheless).
When you link it to Newtown the way they did, the information seems useless to me unless it is designed to be misinterpreted. YMMV.
If the right had done something like this with abortion by issuing a report saying that there had been 2500 fetal infanticides by abortion doctors since Kermit Gosnell was arrested and they defined a late term infanticide as any abortion that occurs after medical viability. Then congressmen and everyone started repeating the statistic without pointing out that the definition of fetal infanticide might not be what people think (especially because it is being presented in the context of Kermit Gosnell). If the right did something like this, people would be all over their shit (and to be fair, at least some people seem to be jumping on Everytown’s shit).
I guess I’m saying that the writer probably picked up the headline, read part of the article and didn’t really pay attention to the part about the study including things like suicides. Once he realized that the headline was misleading, he clarified.
And when I refer to my facebook page, I am not talking about posts by my friends, i am mostly referring to posts by Other98% and other liberal groups on facebook that I subscribe to. (I am really starting to think Other98% just represents a different 2%, maybe 12%)
No, its illegal to murder someone in every state in the union. Aside from the concept of justifiable homicide, the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to kill anyone you please.
true story
He knew that. He was, I expect, trying to make some kind of a point. Not sure what it was, though.
I think they were certainly something like Sandy Hook. In that they were shootings at schools. That’s the link there. And yes, I know what you’re suggesting people think, but you’ve already pointed out you don’t have any way of knowing what “other people” think in general. You’re just guessing.
No, my argument was that the addition of the definitions and explanations is evidence in favour of Everytown not intending to mislead - that doesn’t mean that, without them, they were misleading. If they hadn’t included that information, we wouldn’t have anything to go on either way, leaving the reasonable conclusion to be “We can’t tell what their intentions were.” Which is what we’d be at with the second of the two articles you cited, had they not amended it.
“YMMV” is an excellent point to make. It’s true, people interpret this data in different ways - I for one find it useful. That suggests other people could do, too. And even if you disagree with me that it’s useful, the very fact that I find it to be useful alone shows that it has a purpose.
The advantage of hypothetical accusations is that there is no defence against them, save to say “I disagree.” I have no way of rebutting your opinion, and frankly I try not to hold opinions that could never be rebutted.
Anyway. I disagree.
Probably, you say? Ok, based on what?
So great, you’re already starting to agree with mine and Czarcasm’s point. Good to know. I’d personally put that figure down even more, sub 1% lines, but eh, that’s just me.
I think it’s a “taking it to extremes” joke. Those Second Amendment types, they’re so strong in favour of gun use that even murdering someone is a lesser concern then ensuring everyone has the right to own and use guns!
Not very helpful, I agree.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing on very much. I have suspicions that you do not share but that’s all they are. Suspicions.
So if one side is being inflexible and the other side is being mendacious, why isn’t the first step in honest debate getting rid of the mendacity?
I made the following observations on the Daily Show episodes here:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=725662&page=5
They make a few good points but let me present the other side of the argument.
In the first segment, they make a few (true) claims that don’t tell the whole story:
Gun homicides have dropped. But they do not claim that homicides generally have dropped significantly and the reason for that is that it is not clear that homicides generally have dropped in Australia. http://web.archive.org/web/200904171...fi/cfi003.html One reason is that common citizens and criminals never had access to handguns so their gun homicide rate was never that big to begin with. The gun ban and confiscation was almost entirely rifles and shotguns (with semi-auto or pump actions) and those were fairly heavily regulated to begin with and not as common as they are here, they confiscated fewer than a million firearms. Their genie never got out of the bottle like ours did, they had about 4 guns per 100 people, we have about 110 guns per 100 people. Our last opportunity to really reduce the level of gun ownership throughout our society (IMHO) was in the aftermath of WWII but we didn’t.
Gun suicides have dropped. But like homicides, they do not claim that suicides generally have dropped more than the background rate. "As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[33]"Gun laws of Australia - Wikipedia
There hasn’t been a mass shooting in Australia since 1996 and there was one most years immediately preceding that. That makes for a pretty good sound bite. But, nearby New Zealand also hasn’t had a mass shooting for about the same period of time (although their mass shootings weren’t as common). http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%2...%20Zealand.pdf
I’m not saying that Australia didn’t see any benefit but its not the slam dunk case that John Oliver tries to present and what works in Australia (a country that had maybe 4 guns per 100 people and virtually no handguns in the hands of ordinary citizens or criminals) isn’t necessarily something that would work someplace where there are about 110 guns per 100 people and about half of them are handguns.
In the second segment they talk about the political problem and the politics on guns in Australia and the US are night and day. Australia doesn’t have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t have our gun culture. It doesn’t have almost half of households with a gun. In the last presidential election, it is not clear that Obama would have won reelection if he had been stumping on an AWB.
I don’t think it is cowardice for a Democrat from Montana or Alaska to support gun rights any more than it is corporate shilling for a Democrat from Texas to support the oil and gas industry that supports so many of their constituents. Do you really want to burn your pro-gun Democrats, chase them from your party and engage in the same sort of purity tests that Republicans seem to be demanding of their politicians.
In the third segment, tries to address the argument that what happened in Australia can’t happen here or that it can’t work here. I don’t think they make the case that what can happen Australia or that makes sense in Australia’s can work here. But one soundbite that I find interesting is that they passed these laws in a matter of weeks after the Port Arthur Shooting. If the gun control group here had aimed for something a little less retarded than an AWB and moved on it quickly, they might have had it but they didn’t.
Back when MLK and RFK were assassinated, LBJ tried to pass licensing and registration. LBJ may not have been JFK but he knew how to count votes and pass legislation. He fucking passed Civil Rights, Immigration for non-White immigrants, Great Society War on poverty. But his plan was sidelined by a senator from Maryland who wanted to table LBJs plan while he tried to ban guns. He still ended up with the Gun Control Act but he thought he could get licensing and registration back then and maybe he could have if he hadn’t been derailed by gun control advocates that didn’t know shit about guns.
Well, I can’t argue against suspicions, particularly, other than to say that Everytown and the two articles you pointed to all seem to have gone out of their way to not be misleading in a way that they didn’t have to. But such is life.
I’m one of the inflexible, militant ones and I largely exclude myself from the debate these days because the mendacity of the extremists on the other side has me to the point where I am incapable of debate. I greet every attempt at dialog with suspicion and derision. I assume that because some of them are liars that none of them ever operate from honest motives. I just don’t listen to them any more. I am far from alone in being like this. I am not even the most like this. If there is to be debate, the groups from each side clustered around the middle will have to handle it. Those on my side have heard enough lies that we no longer recognize sincere offers of debate if they are, in fact, ever offered.
In my experience the vast majority not liars, they are just ignorant. They don’t know about guns, they don’t know about gun laws, they don’t know about gun facts. It has taken the patience of job to educate my anti-gun friends and most of them are still anti-gun but they no longer think there are simple answers and they no longer support an assault weapons ban or outlawing guns.
Actual analyses do find that the ban in Australia appears to be associated with reduced homicides and suicides.
It is also incorrect that there was a compensatory increase in suicide by other means, and there has been a decline in homicides.
Like the other poster, I tend not to get too deeply involved in these arguments any more, though for different reasons.
Is it contentious that the US has the most lax guns laws in the civilized world? Is it contentious that the US has more guns per capita than any other nation in the civilized world? Is it contentious that the US has more gun deaths – from homicide, accident, and suicide – than any other nation in the civilized world by such a huge margin that it’s literally off the chart? No? Then the “debate” about what to do about it is just so much black comedy.
Of course the “debate” also offers competing solutions. There was yet another shooting in California a couple of days ago resulting in several deaths and many injuries. One comment on the CNN site under the story basically said “If everyone had a gun, no one would dare perpetrate this kind of shooting. Guns for everyone – NOW!”. There you go. Problem solved. Why didn’t anyone think of this before? Clearly, with every testosterone-enraged yokel and mental defective in the nation permanently armed to the teeth, not a shot would ever be fired.
Is it really reasonable to base your assumptions of the vast majority of gun control folk on yourself and your friends?
I mean, this could go either way here. Perhaps the vast majority of gun control folk are actually much less knowledgeable than your friends. The key thing is that I don’t see how you can base a judgment on millions of people on however many friends of that persuasion you have.
What at do you mean when you say associated? Do you mean correlated or something else?
And what does it mean when it says that the decline in homicides is not statistically significant? How important is statistical significance in these sort of things?
Also why is the opinion of this blogger about the relative value of the Andrew Leigh study over the Lee/Suardi study any use at all? Or are we supposed to adopt Hemenway’s opinion on which studies provide better information.
Is this like global warming where all the science is on one side but one or two unscrupulous academics are providing straws for the gun rights side of the debate to clutch at? Are Lee and Suardi politically motivated enablers while Leigh is an objective scientist?
On page 517 it looks like the rate that firearm suicides dropped at about the same rate that non-firearms suicides dropped. That seems odd. Doing a word search for “substitution” in the Leigh article, I see that Baker thinks that the drop in firearms suicidces combined with a spike in non-firearms suicides might indicate substitution. In fact later on in the article, Leigh says that he cannot rule out substitution because Australia is blessed with low suicide rates and is particularly aggravated by the fact that so few of their suicides are committed with a firearm. He goes on to say that he doubt that 100% substitution occurred so there is that.
I don’t know how you would measure that across all coutries. I would welcome some sort of cite.
We’re #1. 
Once again, it depends on what you mean by civilized.
Our gun homicide rates are not off the charts compared to every other country, in fact ours is lower than several “civilized” nations like Mexico, Russia, Brazil and South Africa. Our accidental death rate is so low I don’t know if you can say they are off the charts no matter what the accidental death rates are elsewhere. And our suicide rates are absolutely average for an industrialized country and somewhat low for a “civilized” nation without regard to method.
OTOH, Canada and Norway have relatively high gun ownership rates and their gun murder rates are pretty low. Maybe there is a way to own guns without killing each other in the face.
Maybe things aren’t as simple as you think.
What solution are you proposing? Do we give any weight to how frequently guns are used defensively?
No, that’s right. Its just my experience with folks from large cities like New York where guns are banned. People don’t seem to be familiar with guns and they form their opinions based on what other people tell them about guns.
Its all anecdotal but based on the comments made by gun control advocates on TV compared to the comments made by gun rights advocates on TV, it was pretty clear that at least the gun control advocates on TV were woefully ignorant compared to the gun rights advocates. I’m not saying that ALL gun control advocates are ignorant or that all gun rights advocates are knowledgeable but it was pretty one sided in the aftermath of Newtown.
If I answer your questions, will you accept the results of the study? I feel like I invest a lot of time responding to these queries (like Bone channeling John Lott), and it ends up being a wild goose chase in the end because in my opinion you don’t really care to know the answer. Rather, I think you want to believe that there is some criticism of a study that is contrary to your beliefs, therefore it can be discounted.
So, if I answer, will you accept the conclusions of the study? If not, why not? If not, why should I bother?
I did feel nevertheless that it was important for others to know that you are not correct in your claims about the homicide rate or the suicide rate in Australia.
Australian firearm suicides went from sub 100 gross to sub 100 gross after their ban and confiscation, right? Not exactly comparable. And that’s the problem really. I’m sure Australia is a perfectly lovely place - but the relevance to US gun laws and the effect similar efforts may have in the US is non-existent.
Unless you can somehow conclude that action in the US similar to Australia would lead to similar results - or any results, it’s pretty useless.
I got confused here. I meant to say firearm homicides. In any case, my point is unchanged in that unless there is a connection to the potential impact on the US analysis of the impact of a gun confiscation in Australia is not informative to the discussion with regard to the US.