3 laws could reduce firearm deaths by 90%...

[Reformedfindlay]

Did I say you did? Can you quote that?

Your wording makes it seem like that.

 

[Crimefree]

Your wording makes it seem like that.

I am not responsible for your imagination.

 

[Crimefree]

Could it be because you are basing that on a previously held belief system and not facts?

If you knew anything about the subject you would be able to explain how you hundred times refuted study still survives and you continue to promete the outright falsity. There ia absolutely no element that ha not been crushed.

If it were not for belief systems you would have addressed the critics which you have not. I know you believe you have but that is not true. Simply point to where causality has been proved.

You cannot do that to the lies you have promoted. I would be ashamed of myself had I done so. You will feel nothing and no responsibility for trying to mislead people

 

[Thrilla]

Except it is true and you know it. Don't lie.

no.. it's categorically false.

pretending otherwise doesn't make it magically true.. it simply means you believe in things that are categorically false.

 

[jaeger19]

I would note that there is a difference between establishing causation and increasing the likelihood that the regulations are the causative reasons. And while I agree that there are more variables for which they could attempt to control - such as the likely influence of applying findings from one State to another State that you raise - and which would make the study stronger, I still see some merit in the study as conducted.

Sure. ITs simply that the preponderance of evidence shows that gun control efforts have little effect on crime and violent behavior.

Sure you could argue "well it stops suicide with a firearm". If that person then goes on to kill themselves by slitting their wrists.. you have essentially done nothing but wasted energy and time and hurt peoples freedoms for no benefit.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I am not responsible for your imagination.

You are if you want to butt in and quote me. Deal with it.

 

[Crimefree]

I would note that there is a difference between establishing causation and increasing the likelihood that the regulations are the causative reasons. And while I agree that there are more variables for which they could attempt to control - such as the likely influence of applying findings from one State to another State that you raise - and which would make the study stronger, I still see some merit in the study as conducted.

Are you suggesting that there is any evidence or even a hint of causation that gives you hope and that the correct assumption is to not introduce any law and hope, that it is better to abstain until such time causation can be found. A thus far uncovered 200 year old mystery of its location in firearm ownership.

What kind of person suggests laws be made without the slightest evidence of possible success and claims research has merit or is strengthened when it fails abysmally? I am sure one would not be remiss in thinking they were not good citizens and have anti-social tendencies in wanting to unjustifiably punish and harass people.

 

[Crimefree]

You are if you want to butt in and quote me. Deal with it.

You are babbling. It's not very nice and you failed to provide the evidence when requested, so do me a favour get lost.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I saw the "full text" tab and admittedly I did not try to read the entire article before publishing this thread (I'll blame the alcohol and 2:30 am posting).

Why not just blame it on being a liberal?

 

[Crimefree]

Why not just blame it on being a liberal?

Are gun control sock puppets liberals?

 

[DVSentinel]

Or the best way to end 90% of firearm deaths?

Ban guns

Lets see, you want to piss off over 100 Million people with guns that want to keep them and you think this is going to reduce gun deaths? If you do, hope your in the front of anyone coming to take mine.

 

[DVSentinel]

...according to a study published in The Lancet, one of the oldest and best known general medical journals. A link to the paper can be found here. It is not behind a pay wall. And I encourage you to read the article before giving into your natural urge of resistance and google searching for articles that will provide with reasons to dismiss the findings. I would also ask that you review the paper in order to try to get a handle on how the study was conducted. It is rather complex.

If you are looking for a discussion of the paper, you can find one at CNN, Ars Technica, and Forbes.

The researchers studied twenty five existing state laws related to gun violence and found that nine were associated with lower rates of gun-related deaths. The three laws which were associated with the biggest reductions were, in order, 1) Universal background checks (39%), 2) Ammunition background checks (18%), and 3) Laws designed to aim with firearm identification (16%).

The Researchers readily admit that such reductions would take many years lower in order to fully implement. And yet, that is a worthwhile goal. There were 31, 672 firearm deaths in 2010 in the USA. Reducing that number is a worthwhile goal.

And yes, I am bias. I know that I am bias. I am not interested in you telling me that I am bias or that I want to ban guns. If you dispute the findings of this study - tell me why. If you dispute the necessity of reducing gun violence - tell me why. If you have another proposal that you believe is reasonable - tell me why.

Gun Deaths, Gun Deaths....Blah, blah, blah. Same **** over and over.

While you are searching for articles such as this, do you actually use your brain to analyse the data or simple accept the words of other socialst like a good little sheep?

Take and look up "Gun Death" rates for states and then compare them to the homicide rates for the states. States with heavy gun laws generally have lower gun death rates but their gun death rate is very close to their homicide rate. But in many states that have "loose" gun laws, the Gun Death rate is over twice that of the homicide rate and even triple in some states.

Conclusion, not all gun deaths are homicides or suicides. NOT ALL GUN DEATHS ARE BAD!!! Dead criminals shot and dead on the floor is a good thing. Unarmed Family murdered by criminal is a very bad thing. What your fine socialist people who did your study can prove is that, yes, stricter gun laws reduce gun Deaths, however, they do not reduce homicide rates, only the number of gun deaths by people defending themselves.

 

[TOG 6]

Or the best way to end 90% of firearm deaths?
Ban guns

Oh.... damn that Constitution, eh?

 

[TOG 6]

Gun Deaths, Gun Deaths....Blah, blah, blah. Same **** over and over.

For every gun used to commit homicide yesterday, 16.4 million were not.
/discussion.

 

[Crimefree]

Or the best way to end 90% of firearm deaths?

Ban guns

Just to show how well this will work can you give a working example of a successful ban ie drugs, alcohol, pornography......

Do gun control advocates ever think before they make claims or check the information they are about to utter?

 

[MrT]

Gun Deaths, Gun Deaths....Blah, blah, blah. Same **** over and over.

While you are searching for articles such as this, do you actually use your brain to analyse the data or simple accept the words of other socialst like a good little sheep?

Take and look up "Gun Death" rates for states and then compare them to the homicide rates for the states. States with heavy gun laws generally have lower gun death rates but their gun death rate is very close to their homicide rate. But in many states that have "loose" gun laws, the Gun Death rate is over twice that of the homicide rate and even triple in some states.

Conclusion, not all gun deaths are homicides or suicides. NOT ALL GUN DEATHS ARE BAD!!! Dead criminals shot and dead on the floor is a good thing. Unarmed Family murdered by criminal is a very bad thing. What your fine socialist people who did your study can prove is that, yes, stricter gun laws reduce gun Deaths, however, they do not reduce homicide rates, only the number of gun deaths by people defending themselves.

Well that is a really interesting argument. Please do me a favor and actually conduct some research on these claims and bring them to me. Are defensive gun usages the explanation for why the gun death rates in States with loose gun laws are so much higher when compared to States with stricter gun laws.

 

[MrT]

For every gun used to commit homicide yesterday, 16.4 million were not.
/discussion.

Glad to see that you are done commenting on my thread based on one piece of information.

Have a good day.

 

[Crimefree]

Glad to see that you are done commenting on my thread based on one piece of information.

Have a good day.

Seems fair you have only used one piece of information and that is known to be wrong.

 

[Crimefree]

Well that is a really interesting argument. Please do me a favor and actually conduct some research on these claims and bring them to me. Are defensive gun usages the explanation for why the gun death rates in States with loose gun laws are so much higher when compared to States with stricter gun laws.

Does your claim correlate with the number of vehicle deaths and vehicles owned? Because it makes the same claim. I would have thought a school boy would not even try that.

 

[DVSentinel]

Well that is a really interesting argument. Please do me a favor and actually conduct some research on these claims and bring them to me. Are defensive gun usages the explanation for why the gun death rates in States with loose gun laws are so much higher when compared to States with stricter gun laws.

Since you seem to have missed it when I posted it before, Gun Deaths by State and Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

A few states, rates of number per 100,000
state gun deaths Homicide
Illinois 8.2 5.3 Strict gun laws
California 7.7 4.4 Strict gun laws
New York 5.1 3.1 Strict gun laws

Oklahoma 14.4 4.5 Loose gun laws
Alaska 20.4 5.6

States with strict gun laws have a very low difference between gun deaths and homicides (all homicides, not just gun related). While states with looser gun laws see a major gap, sometimes 2-3 times higher gun deaths vs homicides.

 

[MrT]

Since you seem to have missed it when I posted it before, Gun Deaths by State and Murder Rates Nationally and By State | Death Penalty Information Center

A few states, rates of number per 100,000
state gun deaths Homicide
Illinois 8.2 5.3 Strict gun laws
California 7.7 4.4 Strict gun laws
New York 5.1 3.1 Strict gun laws

Oklahoma 14.4 4.5 Loose gun laws
Alaska 20.4 5.6

States with strict gun laws have a very low difference between gun deaths and homicides (all homicides, not just gun related). While states with looser gun laws see a major gap, sometimes 2-3 times higher gun deaths vs homicides.

And you think, or more importantly, you have evidence to suggest that the difference in those numbers are defensive gun uses? That doesn't make much sense to me considering that a death caused by a defensive gun use is still a homicide, but it is a justifiable homicide.

 

[DVSentinel]

And you think, or more importantly, you have evidence to suggest that the difference in those numbers are defensive gun uses? That doesn't make much sense to me considering that a death caused by a defensive gun use is still a homicide, but it is a justifiable homicide.

But it is not consider a homicide for the purpose of statistics. You have evidence that the difference is not self-defence shootings?

What other reason would you believe is the cause? Suicide? Sure, Suicide would be part of it, maybe. But suicide rates being that much higher in pro-gun states? I your socialist press and current government would allow collection of those statistics, then we would have a concrete answer. But the anti-gun socialist, like yourself, don't really want concrete answers. Liberal socialist have in the past prevented the FBI from gathering statistics on whether the gun used was a legal purchase or illegal.

It is hard to accept the opinion of liberal socialist because they tend to leave out and even actively block the collection of data that would contradict their agenda.

 

[MrT]

But it is not consider a homicide for the purpose of statistics. You have evidence that the difference is not self-defence shootings?

What other reason would you believe is the cause? Suicide? Sure, Suicide would be part of it, maybe. But suicide rates being that much higher in pro-gun states? I your socialist press and current government would allow collection of those statistics, then we would have a concrete answer. But the anti-gun socialist, like yourself, don't really want concrete answers. Liberal socialist have in the past prevented the FBI from gathering statistics on whether the gun used was a legal purchase or illegal.

It is hard to accept the opinion of liberal socialist because they tend to leave out and even actively block the collection of data that would contradict their agenda.

The second half of your argument seems SUPREMELY INCONSISTENT with the viewpoints being expressed by my other thread. Feel free to look through this thread and tell me who it is that wants to block research and information gathering.

Now then, to the heart of this argument, I would note that you are not offering any evidence to support your assertions. For starters, I have never heard that the classification of "justifiable homicide" does not get included in the statistics when counting homicides. If you have any evidence to support that, and specifically for the source that you used for your numbers, then please relay that information.

Then, you ask me to prove that it isn't caused by defensive gun uses? Are you intellectually lazy or do you really fail to see a problem with asking someone to prove a negative?

But, you did raise one possibility - namely that suicides could help explain the difference. Given that gun ownership triples the risk of suicide, you might be on to something. But, of course, this could all just boil back to the fact that gun ownership in a State is positively correlated with both gun homicides and homicides in general.

But if you want to try and tell me why - and you want to use actual evidence - then you go ahead. But if you're going to just retreat to asking for logical fallacies like asking me to prove a negative or you are just going to start dismissing me because I am "socialist liberal," then you go **** a duck.

 

[DVSentinel]

The second half of your argument seems SUPREMELY INCONSISTENT with the viewpoints being expressed by my other thread. Feel free to look through this thread and tell me who it is that wants to block research and information gathering.

Now then, to the heart of this argument, I would note that you are not offering any evidence to support your assertions. For starters, I have never heard that the classification of "justifiable homicide" does not get included in the statistics when counting homicides. If you have any evidence to support that, and specifically for the source that you used for your numbers, then please relay that information.

Then, you ask me to prove that it isn't caused by defensive gun uses? Are you intellectually lazy or do you really fail to see a problem with asking someone to prove a negative?

But, you did raise one possibility - namely that suicides could help explain the difference. Given that gun ownership triples the risk of suicide, you might be on to something. But, of course, this could all just boil back to the fact that gun ownership in a State is positively correlated with both gun homicides and homicides in general.

But if you want to try and tell me why - and you want to use actual evidence - then you go ahead. But if you're going to just retreat to asking for logical fallacies like asking me to prove a negative or you are just going to start dismissing me because I am "socialist liberal," then you go **** a duck.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder

Data collection

Supplementary Homicide Data—The UCR Program’s supplementary homicide data provide information regarding the age, sex, and race of the murder victim and the offender; the type of weapon used; the relationship of the victim to the offender; and the circumstance surrounding the incident. Law enforcement agencies are asked—but not required—to provide complete supplementary homicide data for each murder they report to the UCR Program. Information gleaned from these supplementary homicide data can be viewed in the Expanded Homicide Data section.

Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. More information about justifiable homicide is furnished in the Expanded Homicide Data section and in Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, “Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2010–2014,” and Expanded Homicide Data Table 15, “Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2010–2014.”

Notice that not all data is required to be reported.

I have been unable to find clear and concise data on gun related suicides. A claim of about 50% suicides is claimed, however, using that, data is not clear. For example, Illinois gun violence rate would be over 10 per 100,000. Do you have any data that clearly shows suicides by guns per state? If not, then your claim of suicides being the difference is no more proven than my assertion that some of the difference is self-defence.

Is gun related suicide rates higher in states with loose gun laws, sure. But the ability of an individual to defend themselves is also greater.

 

[TOG 6]

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter. More information about justifiable homicide is furnished in the Expanded Homicide Data section and in Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, “Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Law Enforcement, 2010–2014,” and Expanded Homicide Data Table 15, “Justifiable Homicide by Weapon, Private Citizen, 2010–2014.”

This would be why the FBI tracks these numbers separately from criminal homicides, meaning that the FBI homicide numbers do not include these killings.