I guess it wasn’t clear to you that I was talking about the effects of the gun ban and not the global reduction in homicides that occurred almost globally in the 1990s. Or do you imagine that the gun ban also reduced the number of stabbing murders?
The number of gun homicides in Australia were so small to begin with that its hard for it to make a noticeable difference.
So now the substitution effect is a figment of my imagination? Or are you saying that I am claiming a 100% substitution effect?
You keep saying that something I say is revealing. What do you imagine it is revealing of?
When I compare Hemenway to Feinstein, I am talking about bias. I don’t think Hemenway is objective, he hasn’t been for decades, and I don’t know if he ever was. Are you saying that bias in a researcher is irrelevant? That it doesn’t undermine him as a credible source of analysis?
When he produces data, thats fine, I don’t think he’s dishonest. But when he provides us an opinion of what he thinks that data means, I don’t give it a lot of weight.
The Lee/Suardi study is irrelevant? because you know they reach conclusions that are not supportive of your point of view.
You are easily stunned. I have some vague notion about what hemenway is saying and I disagree.
Why does using a log make any more sense than anything else? Is that how homicide rates had been behaving historically sot hat it would make sense to project homicide rates on a logarithmic basis going forward? It seems like Hemenway is saying “hey if you used different assumptions then your conclusions would be different” Well no shit Sherlock!
You keep comparing me to a climate change denier. Are you implying that the science on the gun debate is as clear as it is on climate change? Come on, don’t be coy, if you mean to say that your side of the argument is as certain as climate change then just say it. Stop accusing me of being like climate change deniers if the science isn’t there to support your position the way its there for climate change. Its pretty weak sauce.
The assumption they use seem to work fine for the range of values they are dealing with, things may change as things approach zero. Have the historical homicide rate trends behaved according to the assumptions that Hemenway proposes? If not then why then why would we consider them more valid than one that is based on historical trends?
I’m talking about the blogger that you cited. How does he understand the issues any better than I do. As far as I can tell We have a battle of the experts and the Author is picking one set of experts over another.
Emotional state? WTF? You never heard the word “aggravated” used to mean “made more severe or intense”
WTF? You keep making these comments about what my posts say about me but I think your posts and your demeanor are saying a few things about you.
Its not bad evidence. It may be insufficient to make a conclusive statement but there is no reason to think that the evidence is bad.
Thats bad evidence because there are questions about whether or not those people have their heads screwed on straight and if they are telling the truth. There does not seem to be a question about whether or not the pro gun control talking heads are generally less knowledgeable than (I guess you can try to make the argument that I am wrong on that point). There may not be enough evidence to form a conclusion but thats not he question. The question is whether this is enough evidence (combined with common sense and personal experience) to form an opinion. I would suggest that rational people form opinion on much less.
And what have we learned from the AWB?
Your claim is that you meant to say that the author(s) of the study were particularly “made more severe or intense,” and you weren’t talking about their emotional state?
This is just childishly mendacious.
Do not accuse others of lying in Great Debates.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Damuri Ajashi and Hentor the Barbarian, you are both spending too much effort attacking the other poster’s personality and ascribing motives to their statements.
Stick to addressing what has actually been said. Argue the data and leave the personal stuff for The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Maybe we’re just using two difference definitions of “bad evidence”. To be clear, anecdotal evidence is not significant or representative enough, or free of bias or confounding variables to be of any use for the purposes of a conclusion on a larger-scale basis. It may not be incorrect evidence, or necessarily biased or blunted by alternative factors. But it’s insufficient for any use beyond speaking about the small group being looked at, and even then I’d have qualms.
That pro- and anti-gun control people could have a screw loose or be lying? Yes, I would imagine so.
If they do, they are wrong to do so.
I suggested the following over a year ago:
It seemed to be pretty unpopular with people on both sides of the debate. I don’t know if ANYONE is ready to compromise.
Maybe this has been addressed, but …
If they knew this kid was unstable, why did they think the pressure cooker of a university was a good place for him? I can’t think a worse place to put a troubled person.
OK I get that.
OK I get that and I don’t argue that the gun confiscation in Australia caused a reduction in GUN homicides and GUN suicides. What I take issue with is highlighting how much GUN suicides and GUN homicides dropped without also telling us what sort of effect it had on the overall homicide and suicide rate.
Putting aside the problems of comparing Australia with the USA in the first place, there are problems with just focusing on the change in gun homicides and suicides.
I think I got 11 the first time. Moving targets are MUCH tougher than stationary targets even if they aren’t changing direction. If I ever find myself being fired at… I’m gonna start running and change directions frequently. You can’t outrun a bullet but I can outrun someone’s aim.
I don’t think I ever contested that there was a correlation between guns in the home and homicide in the home.
My problem was that people seemed to overlook why there was a correlation.
Were people buying guns to protect themselves against an extrinisic threat (e.g. a drug dealer keeping guns in the home because he deals with degenerate drug addicts all day) or was the increase largely the result of abusive husbands killing their wives instead of beating them, or something like that.
I don’t know if the information exists anywhere but there are dozens of places in this country where guns were illegal until very recently. I would be interested to see what sort of effect the original ban had on suicides when the ban was first enacted and what sort of effect the re-introduction of guns into those places affects suicides. Then at least we would have some sort of ballpark idea of how the availability of guns affect gross suicide rates. Common sense tells me that you don’t have anything approaching 100% substitution of suicide methods when guns aren’t available but our suicide rate is very average despite having so many guns so i wonder how much guns are adding to the problem.
We have had states contract and expand gun rights in various states over time and we have enough information about various states to know how they might behave compared to other states. I’d like to see how much homicide (and other violent crimes) were affected by stricter and more liberal gun laws.
I don’t think it is useless information to know that the incidence of homicide is three times higher in households with a gun… but people pull it out like its a trump card that provides a conclusion to the debate. The same study found greater incidence of homicide for people who live alone, rent or do drugs and this is all compared to control group in the same neighborhood.
Elliot Rodger didn’t go to a university. He went to Santa Barbara Community College.
Where do you live, Long Island or something? The skeet shooting around here costs about $21 for the clay, $11 if you need to rent a gun, ammo is so cheap, its virtually free.
Ah, so he wasn’t a student there. Thanx
NM
If you don’t know if the information exists, how do you know that these dozens of places exist?
If by very recently you mean before the 2008 US Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller decision, here are gun ownership rates, by US state, for 2007:
You’ll see that, except for Hawaii, every US state then had at least a twelve percent gun ownership rate.
By the way, the District of Columbia is not an example of a place where guns were illegal until very recently. It is instead an example of a place where keeping a handgun in your house was illegal. Before Heller, people had rifles in their homes. And after Heller, both open carry and concealed carry remain illegal.
I don’t think the law has changed as much as you think. But if you can list these dozens of places, I’d like to check them out.
I was talking about the existence of information on the reintroduction of guns into places like hawaii.
Dozens of places include cities, not just states.
You said that there are “dozens of places in this country where guns were illegal until very recently.” Hawaii is not an example of that.
I know there are advocacy web sites that support your view:
That headline may be true one day. But what happened in March is that the appeals court sent a case back to Hawaii, on remand, demanding a more pro-gun decision. While a step in the direction of reducing gun control in Hawaii, it didn’t change Hawaii law yet.
Most likely there will be small changes in the direction you want, but they haven’t happened yet.
To explain with an example that may appeal to some gun-friendly types:
. . . fourteen years after Brown [v. Board of Education], less than 20 percent of Black students in the South attended integrated schools. And that was a unanimous decision with no prospects of reversal. With 5-4 decisions like Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), there’s even less reason to think that anti-gun jurisdictions are going to jump to change their laws.
Of course there have been gun-friendly changes to law wholly apart from judicial mandates. Those are more significant, I think, than court cases, but still can’t be described as turning guns, taken in general, from illegal to legal.