|
Rent-A-Cop posted:So I did a quick and dirty scatter graph. Y-axis is violent crime rate according to the UCR. X-axis is a ranking of states by the Open Society Foundation, 1-50 most strict laws to least strict laws. Full disclosure: OSF didn't rate Washington DC so I dropped it in with a 1 ranking considering its gun laws are at least as strict as Massachusetts. RAC, man, you shouldn't post a chart with no scale and unlabeled axis.  You're better than this.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
Bryter posted:Good thing only good people can own and use guns. Dead Reckoning posted:RAC, man, you shouldn't post a chart with no scale and unlabeled axis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm pretty sure no one considers a cop shooting a dog and hitting a kid an example of a good gun owner. What is it with cops and shooting every dog they see anyways? Gun owners are largely right-wing or libertarians and don't actually care about these things and would oppose them if put into practice, they are merely deflections away from criticism of their toys. Also, the US's HDI and inequality-adjusted HDI are not far enough outside the range of other countries for poverty to be the sole explanation of the US's homicide rate, which the liberal gun-fanboys studiously ignore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What? I thought you were being sarcastic in regards to the graph. I take back what I said, you're a cool dude and the graph is cool. One thing I would like to note on that graph is that 5 states with relatively strict gun laws are in the 0-200 range while 3 lax states, 4 moderate states and 2 strict states are in the 600-800 range. Also, if you have 25 as a sort of "halfway mark" you'll find that states above 25 tend to have slightly lower crime rates. Now, of course, there are other factors to consider. Poorer states, due to cultural reasons, tend to have more lax gun laws, and poverty is linked to crime. Edit: Also, how does snowman's "the big payoff of owning a gun is to legally shoot someone" fit in the realm of responsible gun ownership? unwantedplatypus fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Gun owners are largely right-wing or libertarians and don't actually care about these things and would oppose them if put into practice, they are merely deflections away from criticism of their toys. Also, the US's HDI and inequality-adjusted HDI are not far enough outside the range of other countries for poverty to be the sole explanation of the US's homicide rate, which the liberal gun-fanboys studiously ignore. Maybe guns aren't bad, maybe it's Americans who are bad. I don't think bad people should be trusted with deadly weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm pretty sure no one considers a cop shooting a dog and hitting a kid an example of a good gun owner. What is it with cops and shooting every dog they see anyways? I agree it's not a good move politically because people like you exist. I think it's more helpful to focus on other things in the short term. I still absolutely support more gun control, which is what we're discussing here, in the gun control thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I'm pretty sure no one considers a cop shooting a dog and hitting a kid an example of a good gun owner. What is it with cops and shooting every dog they see anyways? Regular law-abiding gun owners such as snowman "My AR-15 is a tool of justice" crossing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I agree it's not a good move politically because people like you exist. I think it's more helpful to focus on other things in the short term. I still absolutely support more gun control, which is what we're discussing here, in the gun control thread. My goal is to see gun control gone as a political plank so we can focus on more effective solutions to reducing overall crime, rather than farting around in circles about guns. If your end goal with gun control is to punish the racist redneck strawman in your head, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I thought you were being sarcastic in regards to the graph. I take back what I said, you're a cool dude and the graph is cool. If this thread isn't gas-chambered by tomorrow someone remind me to clean this up, add some labels, and grab the stats for some other contributing factors. I bet substance abuse correlates well with violent crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
It probably won't get gassed as long as everyone stays reasonably civil and doesn't go full
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I think disarming the police would probably be a good start for gun control. Rent-A-Cop posted:If this thread isn't gas-chambered by tomorrow someone remind me to clean this up, add some labels, and grab the stats for some other contributing factors. I bet substance abuse correlates well with violent crime. Hang on, got anything sooner than 2000 for Open Society data?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:My goal is to see gun control gone as a political plank so we can focus on more effective solutions to reducing overall crime, rather than farting around in circles about guns. If your end goal with gun control is to punish the racist redneck strawman in your head, I don't think we'll see eye to eye on it. Why do you think gun control is about punishment? Even if reducing easy access to guns combined with oversight and monitoring of people who owned guns did literally nothing to the violent crime rate, reducing access to guns would save the lives of many suicidal people. The love white men have for their toys is less important to me than people's lives. It just sucks that we can't help those people by reducing their easy access to the guns that are irresponsibly strewn around everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I don't question Dr. Hemenway's good intentions, but... Your completely right, but you have to imagine a quite effeminate 70 year old guy saying it to get the comedic effect. Re: Rent a Cop and the correlation between (gun)violence and the frequency of guns. I like the home made graph on the lack of correlation between gun laws and violent crime. However, I do think that you will get a different graph when looking at the rate of gun ownership per state and homicide.  Note: All data are from 1999–2007 because cell counts were suppressed beginning in 2008; terrorism-related homicides are not counted. High gun states: Louisiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, North Dakota, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming Low gun states: Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York source: http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/Impact%20of%20Brady%20Act%202013.pdf Maybe that means seizing guns is the only way forward?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
various cheeses posted:I honestly wonder what the whole conversation would've looked like if he had burned the school down or used a bomb instead. Probably would have been about instituting fire drills or banning bom- oh wait there are already policies in place for those, only nobody gets angry because they don't affect their dumb hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Hang on, got anything sooner than 2000 for Open Society data?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:
If the "way forward" means reducing gun deaths, then you can accomplish the same thing over a longer period of time by implementing outright bans at the federal level. Confiscation invites conflict and a sharp uptick in gun violence, at least until the gun owners are all disarmed/killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:at least until the gun owners are all disarmed/killed. Yeah but what's the downside?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Yeah but what's the downside? I'd have to find a new hobby
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Lmao if that actually happened you would hand over all your guns with no fuss, as you are most certainly in the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are huge cowards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:If the "way forward" means reducing gun deaths, then you can accomplish the same thing over a longer period of time by implementing outright bans at the federal level. Your right, that was a tired and stupid joke. Besides, according to these authors even the relatively tame laws that were implemented in Connecticut after 2012 appear to be somewhat effective in preventing violent offences: quote:However, considering separately the subgroup of people with serious mental illness who do not have criminal records, our data seem to suggest that the Brady Law background checks can have some positive effect, if enforced. In those with a gun-disqualifying mental health record, risk of violent criminal offending declined significantly after Connecticut began reporting gun-disqualifying mental health records to the NICS. These findings do not prove a causal relationship between the background
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
^^^Most of us are A-OK with the NICS system as it exists now being properly funded, utilized, populated with reports.Lemming posted:Even if reducing easy access to guns combined with oversight and monitoring of people who owned guns did literally nothing to the violent crime rate, reducing access to guns would save the lives of many... people. The love white men have for their toys is less important to me than people's lives. IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:High gun states: Louisiana, Utah, Oklahoma, Iowa, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho,
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Lmao if that actually happened you would hand over all your guns with no fuss, as you are most certainly in the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are law abiding. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Your right, that was a tired and stupid joke. Besides, according to these authors even the relatively tame laws that were implemented in Connecticut after 2012 appear to be somewhat effective in preventing violent offences: Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Lmao if that actually happened you would hand over all your guns with no fuss, as you are most certainly in the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are huge cowards. Of course. Even the "cold dead hands" crowd, probably. But some are ideologically bound and would die on that hill. "Cowardly to not die for stupid causes," says the goon. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:CT was able to report disqualifying mental health conditions prior to 2012, they just decided not to. A lot of states simply refuse to comply with NICS because they don't want spend the money it would require. I would personally love to see NICS compliance made mandatory and federally funded. That's what I got from the paper and is addressed in there as-well. So that's one thing almost everyone can agree on. Just reading these two papers casually so far has left me with the distinct impression that the book is quite good and balanced in its approach. Give it a read an let me know what you think. Skip the preface and foreword though, i'm only interested in the science. Link for convenience: http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/Impact%20of%20Brady%20Act%202013.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even then, it appears the main problem with guns is their utility in suicide. That alone is a pretty fuckin big problem dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm a little skeptical of an analysis that excludes Arizona and California and picks which states it looks at. Even then, it appears the main problem with guns is their utility in suicide. I disagree on it only being suicide, I see an comparable high ratio for the homicide of the most vulnerable of the population: the children, women and elderly. Almost excactly the population you previously described as the main benefactors of the equalizing potential of firearms. Edit: quote:see also, alcohol, cigarettes. I'm still not sold on the "saving lives" argument against individual choice. That's a valid position in my opinion from which you can defend unrestricted access to guns, but that changes the entire discussion. If we both agree and accept that gun-control in some form will have a statistical and relevant impact on violent crimes and homicide we can then discuss at what point individual liberty supersedes the public health benefit. I'm (occupationally) very pro alcohol and cigarette restrictions but, can understand your position even though its anathema to most of my principles. In any case: i'm in Boston until the 23rd of October and have never shot a gun so if any pro-gun person wants to make me join their position by letting me partake of their rituals, i'm open to it. IAMNOTADOCTOR fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I'm not a felon, am a United States citizen, and passed a background check? I've taken hunter's safety courses, gun safety courses, and possess a concealed pistol license granted by the state? I store my guns in a heavy-duty safe while not in use, and keep them unloaded. And it's a good thing that you're guaranteed not to have any mental health issues for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Bryter posted:That alone is a pretty fuckin big problem dude. Rent-A-Cop posted:No. As far as I can tell they only did that ranking once. I still went with it because nothing else I could turn up was a complete ranking of all 50 states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Frankly, it's not enough of a problem for me to think it's worth giving up rights over. But then again, I feel the same way about alcohol. I understand not everyone agrees with me though. Why? What is it about having a gun that is so important that it merits making it extremely easy for vulnerable people to kill themselves instantly? And you can't distil small arms in a bath pal. Bryter fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:And it's a good thing that you're guaranteed not to have any mental health issues for the rest of your life. Risk accept
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:Of course. Even the "cold dead hands" crowd, probably. But some are ideologically bound and would die on that hill. Not dying for your guns doesn't make you a coward, but it is what a coward would do. As is making other people die for their guns, which they do a lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Because restricting rights on the basis that people may misuse them rather than punishing those who actually cause harm is no way to run a society. It's actually a great way to run a society because I don't want the government to wait until after I die of salmonella to inspect the kitchens of the restaurant that killed me and regulate what they can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Lmao if that actually happened you would hand over all your guns with no fuss, as you are most certainly in the overwhelming majority of gun owners who are huge cowards. Actually Australia already tried this and they didn't get all, or even the majority, of people's guns. Turns out a lot of people would rather just keep their guns and not tell anyone, or bury them out in the desert, or whatever, rather than hand them over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Actually Australia already tried this and they didn't get all, or even the majority, of people's guns. Turns out a lot of people would rather just keep their guns and not tell anyone, or bury them out in the desert, or whatever, rather than hand them over. Yes, they'd rather hide or give in than do the violent uprising fantasy that was being alluded to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
I'm throwing in my lot with Obama's homo-muslimtroopers in civil war 2, because gun owners couldn't insurgency their way out of a paper bag. "I won't register my guns because Obama will know I have them and come take them!" *posts a million tacticool poses with his guns on social media under his real name*
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Why? What is it about having a gun that is so important that it merits making it extremely easy for vulnerable people to kill themselves instantly? I can't justify it through a pure utility ("why do you need that") metric, but I don't think that principle should guide our policy decisions. Similarly, there isn't conclusive information to prove that access to guns is a significant net good or ill in individual cases divorced from the context (confounding variables) of poverty or illness. Even if we assume the worst cases proposed by those in favor of gun control, that owning a gun in the home is moderately correlated to successful suicides through direct causes and slightly more likely to be correlated to dying in a homicide through correlation with no causal mechanism, I don't think that is a compelling case for the government to decide what level of risk people should be allowed to accept instead of making that choice themselves. I know the risks of a gun in the home (bang), I know the risks of skydiving (splat), I know the risks of drinking (many), and I know the long term risks of eating peanut butter (cholesterol, cancer via arsenic or aflatoxin), but I choose to accept all of those. As to your second point, it's easy to make a gun at home. If people really want it, there will be someone to meet that demand. A simple safety tube submachinegun was made by every country in the darkest days of WWII, and can be made by the incautious with basic hand tools. Few people in America do this now, but supply would certainly rise to meet demand. That's assuming we don't import like every other country with a crime problem. Sweden and Canada have both had full on organized crime wars with explosives and machine guns. France had a full-on terrorist mass shooting. America imports felony quantities of narcotics on a regular basis, and can likely import guns via the same channels. Not saying that illegally importing guns shouldn't be illegal, just saying that attempts to restrict access to guns to only extra-legal channels is likely to be as effective as doing the same with drugs or booze (a lot of which was run across the Canadian and southern borders during prohibition.) Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
On one hand guns own but on the other hand trolling gun people is also fun so I'm not sure what side to take in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
How many mass shootings were done by skilled machinists capable of fabricating a gun from household items, and how many by lazy jagoffs who picked a gun because it was easy to get
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:40 |
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:That's a valid position in my opinion from which you can defend unrestricted access to guns, but that changes the entire discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 07:47
|
|