USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

Nanomashoes: Aug 18, 2012

Dead Reckoning posted:

Busting up a Chick-fil-A isn't defending yourself against fascists.

Actually it is.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 01:20

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Especially if you're non hetro.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:26

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Nanomashoes posted:

Actually it is.

Dude that is *exactly* the same thing as threatening to murder black people. Apparently.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:32

Polygynous: Dec 13, 2006; welp

Jaxyon posted:

Dude that is *exactly* the same thing as threatening to murder black people. Apparently.

stockholder lives(???) matter

# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:52

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

tentative8e8op posted:

Avoiding such a discussion, in the national sense, makes me so frustrated. I really hope passing real and effective gun control legislation becomes another priority after healthcare.

Agreed, these patchwork laws from new york to texas need to be federally standardized.

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Basically the only way to reduce gun violence in America is to increase education, mental health care and reduce poverty. I find those much more feasible than any kind of meaningful gun legislation at this point. Maybe in a 100 years we will stop fellating our guns long enough to enact something worthwhile.

But if we have all those things, why do we need to ban guns?

ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 05:55

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Hey you know what would be cool? If we had an organization like the loving CDC investigate ways of at least improving gun safety. The CDC is forbidden from doing so, so we really have no idea if any legislation that we enact will work or not.

The CDC isn't banned from doing gun related research, it's banned from doing advocacy. The relevant language from the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill is: �none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.� The CDC still collects data on deaths & injuries via firearm; you can go in WISQARS and look at it yourself.

Pembroke Fuse posted:

Also, given the high correlation between say spousal abuse and gun homicide, I would say that revoking the rights of spousal abusers from owning guns might be a good start.

Great news: 18 U.S. Code � 922 prohibits anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, so the future is now I guess.

Interesting how people who think we need more gun control tend to be poorly informed about our actual gun laws.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:02

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

The CDC isn't banned from doing gun related research, it's banned from doing advocacy. The relevant language from the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill is: �none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.� The CDC still collects data on deaths & injuries via firearm; you can go in WISQARS and look at it yourself.

Great news: 18 U.S. Code � 922 prohibits anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, so the future is now I guess.

Interesting how people who think we need more gun control tend to be poorly informed about our actual gun laws.

Do not engage with this idiot. His moron interpretation of reality has been debunked multiple times to his face, and yet he still posts the same nonsense. DR has never posted in good faith in his life and you'd legit be better off trying to argue with a Trump supporter.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:07

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Surely you can quickly google & cite the relevant law banning the CDC from engaging in any sort of firearms related research then. Boy would that be embarrassing for me.

Jizz Festival posted:

Are you the same person who was really concerned about military spending being decreased a few pages ago?

Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:13

RuanGacho: Jun 20, 2002; "You're gunna break it!"

Lemming posted:

Do not engage with this idiot. His moron interpretation of reality has been debunked multiple times to his face, and yet he still posts the same nonsense. DR has never posted in good faith in his life and you'd legit be better off trying to argue with a Trump supporter.

I've changed my mind about a lot of things in the past few months, I was curious if he had.

It seems quaint in a way, I don't mean to belittle the things people are passionate about but guns seem just so, I don't know, unimportant compared to Nazis.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:13

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

DR is playing the same boring game. Congress pulled funding for all gun safety research at the exact same time as the the Dickey amendment:

quote:

The dearth of research funding goes back to 1997, when an amendment was added to an operations bill that passed in Congress with the language that the CDC will be barred from any research that will �advocate or promote gun control,� CDC spokeswoman Courtney Lenard told ABC News.

Called the Dickey Amendment after Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas who served from 1993 to 2001, the amendment is often called a ban, but it did allow for research on injuries or deaths from firearms. However, Lenard pointed out that after the amendment, Congress cut funding for the CDC by the exact amount that had been spent on gun research in the year before. While that $2.6 million in funding was eventually restored, it was earmarked for traumatic brain injury research, according to a 2013 article in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

The CDC still focuses on surveillance of firearm deaths, but the steps taken by Congress have effectively blocked expansive CDC research on the public health effects of firearms, the CDC spokeswoman said.

�CDC�s Injury Center has very limited discretionary funding to dedicate to firearm violence research and prevention,� Lenard said in a statement to ABC News.

So while congress prevents the research willful idiots can pretend it isn't happening

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:21

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

Surely you can quickly google & cite the relevant law banning the CDC from engaging in any sort of firearms related research then. Boy would that be embarrassing for me.

I'll link the person who responded to you two years ago when you made that exact same post you loving cretin

Zeitgeist posted:

A 1997 ammendment to that 1996 bill added "in whole or in part" which was enough to kill basically any CDC research into the area for about 2 decades. But yes, you'd be technically true in saying it didn't explicitly forbid the research, and also laughably naive on how government works.

However, the reason you're starting to see research now is that Obama ended the ban last year.

But yeah the FBI tracks gun crime, not gun deaths/violence on the whole.

I'm curious though, how does the UCR classify gun deaths where the victim was anarmed black person and the perpetrator was a cop who planted a weapon?

You didn't engage in good faith then and you aren't engaging in good faith now. You can go gently caress yourself.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:23

The Muppets On PCP: Nov 13, 2016; by Fluffdaddy

Dead Reckoning posted:

Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands.

"accountable"

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:24

Jizz Festival: Oct 30, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Dead Reckoning posted:

Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands.

Lol, amazing how your views on violence become so nuanced once the topic is changed.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 06:25

treasured8elief: Jul 25, 2011; Salad Prong

Dead Reckoning posted:

What would that even look like to you? Because nothing being put forward by Democratic leadership is going to reduce the homicide rate. For example, the enactment and subsequent sunset of the 1994 assault weapons ban had no measurable impact on the national homicide rate.

Gun control is a failed policy, because there are a hundred things more strongly correlated with the homicide rate than legal access to guns, but no one on the left is willing to abandon it because they're emotionally invested, and also because they really hate the most prominent pro gun control advocates. (Not without some justification, TBH.)

Sounds violent.

I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed.

P much this:

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Agreed, these patchwork laws from new york to texas need to be federally standardized.

Getting a License in New York City posted:

Along with the license application itself, you will need the following:

Fees � 2 US Postal Money Orders, made payable to New York City Police Department are required, one for $340 (for the application), and one for either $94.25 (electronic fingerprints) or $105.25 (ink fingerprints), depending on how you are being fingerprinted. These fees are non-refundable. The NYPD now accepts credit cards as well.
Photographs � 2 recent �passport� (1.5″ square) color photos.
Birth Certificate � required to prove your birth date. Other acceptable forms proving your birth date include: military record, US Passport or Baptismal certificate.
Proof of Citizenship/Alien Registration � if you were not born in the US, you must submit your naturalization papers, or other evidence of citizenship, or your Alien Registration Card. AND for those living here less than 7 years, you must submit a good conduct certificate from your country of origin.
Military Discharge � your separation papers (DD 214) and your discharge papers if applicable.
Proof of Residence � this can be: a real estate tax bill, ownership shares in a co-op or condo, or a lease. You may also be asked to bring your driver�s license, NY State Income Tax return, or a utility bill.
Arrest/Summons/Order of Protection Information � related to question 23 on the application, any arrest information (even if the case was dismissed or the record sealed) must be divulged. Any summons received for any violation other than things like a parking ticket must be divulged, i.e any �summons in lieu of arrest� that requires you to appear in court at a later date. If you ever had an Order of
Protection or a Restraining Order issued against you, you must divulge the name/address/phone number of the complainant, their relationship to you, and the reason the Order was issued.
Proof of Business Ownership (for business licenses) � see the details in the application for the appropriate documentation, depending on your circumstances.
Letter of Necessity (for carry permits) � you won�t get a carry permit without showing cause, and if you have cause, you should probably already know what is required.

Please note, BRING ORIGINALS, not copies of supporting documents. Also note, your application and any addendum MUST BE NOTARIZED. Included with the application is a request for the following letters. These letters must also be notarized.

Request for Pre-Exemption � this isn�t needed by most, if you require it, you should know why beforehand.
Affidavit of Familiarity with Rules and Law � states you are familiar with NYC Title 38 Chapter 5 (licensee responsibilities), NYS Article 35 (deadly force), NYS Article 265 (criminal possession of firearms), NYS Article 400 (licensee responsibilities), rules regarding Safety Locking Devices (trigger locks), NYC Charter 18-C (public safety zones � included w/ application), US Title 18 (persons prohibited from possessing firearms � included w/ application), and the NYPD pamphlet on terrorism and suspicious activity. See the �Legislation� links to the right for more info.
Affidavit of Cohabitant � if you live with anyone over 18, they must complete this affidavit, if you don�t live with anyone, you need to complete an affidavit stating that you live alone.
Safe Guardian Affidavit � this designates a person who is responsible for your firearms in the event of your disability or death. They do not need to have a firearm permit.

Typically, you can wait anywhere from 1 � 3 months for a letter identifying the officer assigned to handle your application. They will ask you to schedule your interview along with his request for any further documentation. Many people are asked to supply:

3 reference letters from people that have known you for at least 2 years. The letter should state that you are �of good moral character.� The more detailed and personal it is, the better.
An Affidavit with familiarity of Article 35, Article 265 and Article 400;
An Affidavit of Proof of Employment
A current utility bill. If the utility bill is not in your name, you must supply another Affidavit from the person whose name appears on the bill.
Current bank statements and 1040 Income Tax return along with photos of your home (if self employed),
Their Social Security Card,
Their marriage license, and
Their DMV abstract.

Call the officer during the hours stated on the letter and schedule the interview.

After waiting another 1 � 3 months, you may get your approval letter. You now have 30 days to pick up your Purchase Authorization. If you are denied, you must file an appeal under Article 78. You have 4 months from the date of the denial to appeal.

To Pick up the license & purchase authorization, go to the designated police station, with the original letter, Monday � Thursday between the hours of 9:00am � 12 noon. You will be photographed, and given your license along with one Purchase Authorization.

You now have 30 days to purchase a handgun from an authorized FFL. You are now legal to rent/shoot guns in NYC.

The key thing to remember is that whenever you are storing or traveling with a firearm, it must be unloaded in a locked container or safe, with a trigger lock, ammunition kept separately.

Buying and Registering a Gun in New York City posted:

You can purchase a firearm from any FFL. If you buy a new gun, IT MUST BE NY COMPLIANT. New guns must be shipped with spent casings fired from the manufacturer, contained in a sealed envelope. Used guns should be marked by the shipper as such. Make sure you fill out the BATFE form, get a receipt and have the FFL fill out the Purchase Authorization form.

Every 90 days you can buy ONE handgun, pistol or revolver in the City of New York. You will need to fill out the Purchase Authorization Request Form and mail it to NYPD so that they can provide you with a �Purchase Authorization� that you can use to take possession of a new handgun at the time of purchase.

Once you pick up the PA, you have another 30 days to purchase the actual firearm. Once purchased (even if it is on the date the PA expires) you have 72 hours (not calendar days, not business days, 72 hours � which might include weekends and holidays) to bring the firearm, locked, unloaded, down to 1PP to have it inspected.

Inspections are done any business day (M-F, excluding holidays) from 12pm � 2pm.

Bring the receipt (2 copies � you keep the original they get the other), Purchase Authorization, and your firearm (unloaded, trigger locked, no mag in gun, no ammo on your person, in a locked case) to the designated police station, Monday � Thursday between the hours of 12 noon � 3pm. Let the checkpoint know you are carrying a firearm (and let them know it�s properly secured). Then go for your gun inspection. Your gun will be inspected. The make, model, caliber and serial # will be recorded.

treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:15

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

pretty elaborate gimmick to be pro-police violence

# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:18

Raskolnikov38: Mar 3, 2007; We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold

lol uspol managed to swerve away from the primary salt cliff directly off the gun control cliff

# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:18

shrike82: Jun 11, 2005

Raskolnikov38 posted:

lol uspol managed to swerve away from the primary salt cliff directly off the gun control cliff

why not combine both?

quote:

Clinton has attacked Sanders for voting five times against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which established a background check system and wait periods for people buying handguns from licensed dealers. Sanders often responds to this attack by highlighting his long-time support for �instant background checks.� That�s true, but there�s more to the story. When the Brady bill was being debated, the �instant� background checks that Sanders supported actually would�ve killed the Brady bill.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:21

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this:
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/908143376838656000

# ? Sep 14, 2017 07:46

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Lemming posted:

I'll link the person who responded to you two years ago when you made that exact same post you loving cretin

You didn't engage in good faith then and you aren't engaging in good faith now. You can go gently caress yourself.

at acting like my position is the dishonest one. See, you and Trabisnikof already shifted the goalposts from "the CDC is banned from researching gun violence" to "OK, well they're not banned, but Congress hasn't approved any funding for them to study my pet issue." Yeah, the CDC got their hand slapped in the 90's after they funded a study which was structured to reach the foregone conclusion that guns are bad and dangerous, but it's not as though democrats couldn't have restored that funding in 2008 if it was super important. The whole thing is a ridiculous kabuki: "Oh, we would love to do all this very important and unbiased research on the public health effects of firearm ownership, if only someone could give us a bunch of money and repeal the ban on using that money for advocating banning guns."

tentative8e8op posted:

I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed.

P much this:

Why? Seriously, why do you think this is important? Despite their ludicrous licensing scheme, NYC still has a higher homicide rate (3.9/100k in 2014 per FBI UCR) than nearby Vermont (1.6/100k) where you can buy a handgun and concealed carry it the same day without any sort of permit. Strict local regulations haven't stopped San Francisco (5.3/100k) and Chicago (15.2/100k) from having higher homicide rates than the national average (4.5/100k). Meanwhile, in most of the northern Great Plains states and rural New England, gun laws are lax and homicides are low. There isn't any correlation between restricting legal access to guns and low homicide rates, either geographically or over time, so why do you think they are important?

# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:35

Jizz Festival: Oct 30, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Pushing for gun control when people are increasingly afraid of being shot by the police is a really tone-deaf, stupid thing to do.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:47

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Unsurprisingly, I, along with most normal people, distinguish between prescribed violence committed by accountable and identified agents of the state and randos deciding to take the law into their own hands.

Yet somehow unable to distinguish between racist threats of murder and garbage can vandalism.

:thunk:

# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:47

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Jizz Festival posted:

Pushing for gun control when people are increasingly afraid of being shot by the police is a really tone-deaf, stupid thing to do.

That's why they want to focus the conversation away from Gun Culture to Gun Rights. If we start talking about Gun Culture it opens up questions about police armament, what trust means in society and broader questions about gun safety from community, process and design perspectives. Maybe an armed society isn't a polite society? Empirical evidence shows arming the police certainly hasn't made them polite.

By limiting the conversation to Gun Rights, all those topics are excluded and instead the feelings and desires of would-be gun owners become the center of focus. It also "helpfully" excludes the rights and desires of non-gun owners.

Edit: a small example of this has been the gun lobby's push to ban police gun buyback programs if the police destroy the guns. Sure they have some idiotic talking point, but this is about making it harder for communities to remove guns if they voluntarily chose to do so while giving any gun the status of historical artifact, unable to be destroyed but instead must be maintained for the good of society. That's not about gun rights, but its about gun culture.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 08:54

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

Office Pig posted:

Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this:
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/908143376838656000

Are you loving kidding me? :psypop:

# ? Sep 14, 2017 09:01

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

at acting like my position is the dishonest one. See, you and Trabisnikof already shifted the goalposts from "the CDC is banned from researching gun violence" to "OK, well they're not banned, but Congress hasn't approved any funding for them to study my pet issue." Yeah, the CDC got their hand slapped in the 90's after they funded a study which was structured to reach the foregone conclusion that guns are bad and dangerous, but it's not as though democrats couldn't have restored that funding in 2008 if it was super important. The whole thing is a ridiculous kabuki: "Oh, we would love to do all this very important and unbiased research on the public health effects of firearm ownership, if only someone could give us a bunch of money and repeal the ban on using that money for advocating banning guns."
Why? Seriously, why do you think this is important? Despite their ludicrous licensing scheme, NYC still has a higher homicide rate (3.9/100k in 2014 per FBI UCR) than nearby Vermont (1.6/100k) where you can buy a handgun and concealed carry it the same day without any sort of permit. Strict local regulations haven't stopped San Francisco (5.3/100k) and Chicago (15.2/100k) from having higher homicide rates than the national average (4.5/100k). Meanwhile, in most of the northern Great Plains states and rural New England, gun laws are lax and homicides are low. There isn't any correlation between restricting legal access to guns and low homicide rates, either geographically or over time, so why do you think they are important?

Lmfao I love how you keep trying to do this kind of bullshit, where you inject just enough credibility to your posts (like sourcing numbers) that you hope it tries to distract people from insane, idiot flaws in your logic (you're comparing cities to massive rural areas idiot, making direct comparisons of homicide rate and gun laws useless when you're using both as your data).

And on and on and on and on forever.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 09:05

MizPiz: May 29, 2013; by Athanatos

Office Pig posted:

Well at least now I can blame shrike for making me post this:
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/908143376838656000

Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it?

# ? Sep 14, 2017 11:27

Asimo: Sep 23, 2007

Dead Reckoning posted:

at acting like my position is the dishonest one. See, you and Trabisnikof already shifted the goalposts from "the CDC is banned from researching gun violence" to "OK, well they're not banned, but Congress hasn't approved any funding for them to study my pet issue." (...)

This isn't "shifting goalposts" because it's the same goddamn thing you thundering moron. Or do you assume research can be done free of charge if you leave milk and cookies out at night for the research faeries?

# ? Sep 14, 2017 12:01

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

MizPiz posted:

Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it?

Haha this is the first thing I thought of.

She's become the parody people on the left were making fun of her with.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 12:32

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

Guys Hillary is self immolation herself to drive the Dem party leftward and make Bernie look really good.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 13:52

Potato Salad: Oct 23, 2014; nobody cares

Dead Reckoning posted:

The CDC isn't banned from doing gun related research, it's banned from doing advocacy.

Hi, guy who works with a CDC funding apparatus here: get hosed, firearm research is absolutely stopped at every level of the grants application and research lifecycles in the US.

It pisses me the gently caress off when some son of a bitch makes an argument on letter of law that has been entirely subverted in execution. It's like a Republican pointing to the 13th Amendment and saying, "See, racism is dead. "

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:04

treasured8elief: Jul 25, 2011; Salad Prong

Dead Reckoning posted:

Why? Seriously, why do you think this is important? Despite their ludicrous licensing scheme, NYC still has a higher homicide rate (3.9/100k in 2014 per FBI UCR) than nearby Vermont (1.6/100k) where you can buy a handgun and concealed carry it the same day without any sort of permit. Strict local regulations haven't stopped San Francisco (5.3/100k) and Chicago (15.2/100k) from having higher homicide rates than the national average (4.5/100k). Meanwhile, in most of the northern Great Plains states and rural New England, gun laws are lax and homicides are low. There isn't any correlation between restricting legal access to guns and low homicide rates, either geographically or over time, so why do you think they are important?

Are you just against such drastic NYC style licensing, or is even pushing for strict firearm registration a step too far in your mind? Even ignoring any possible links to the homicide rate. I can't see the downside you do to having a robust registration system phased in over time.

It's an important issue to me because there are strong correlations, both with legal access per state and firearm ownership over time. This really is something we should be pushing for just as much as other 'litmus test' issues such as marijuana legalization and prison reform.

The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981�2010 posted:

We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy�the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm�and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level.

Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

In the final model, rerun with standardized predictor variables to ease interpretation of results, the IRR for the gun ownership proxy was 1.129 (95% CI = 1.061, 1.201), indicating that for each 1-SD increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate increased by 12.9%
========

Over the 30-year study period, the mean estimated percentage of gun ownership (measured by the FS/S proxy) ranged from a low of 25.8% in Hawaii to a high of 76.8% in Mississippi, with an average over all states of 57.7%. Among the 50 states, the average percentage of gun ownership decreased from 60.6% in 1981 to 51.7% in 2010. By decade, this percentage declined from 60.6% in 1981 to 1990 to 59.6% in 1991 to 2000 to 52.8% in 2001 to 2010.

Over the study period, the mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate ranged from a low of 0.9 per 100,000 population in New Hampshire to a high of 10.8 per 100,000 in Louisiana, with an average over all states of 4.0 per 100,000. Among the 50 states, the average firearm homicide rate decreased from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in 2010. By decade, this rate was 4.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 1990, 4.3 per 100,000 in 1991 to 2000, and 3.4 per 100,000 in 2001 to 2010.

In a bivariate analysis (a GEE negative binomial model with year fixed effects and accounting for clustering by state, but without any other predictor variables besides gun ownership), the gun ownership proxy was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.011; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.005, 1.018).

After we controlled for all the measured potential confounding variables, rather than just those found significant in the final model, the gun ownership proxy was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (IRR = 1.008; 95% CI = 1.004, 1.012;). This result did not change after we excluded the 6 states with missing data for homicide rates in 1 or more years. When we restricted the analysis to 2001, 2002, and 2004 (years for which the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System directly measured household gun ownership in all 50 states), the magnitude of the IRR estimated with the proxy measure (FS/S) was similar to that estimated with the survey measure of state-specific household gun ownership, but it was not statistically significant.

To the best of our knowledge, ours is the most up-to-date and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gun-related homicide rates among the 50 states. Our study encompassed a 30-year period, with data through 2010, and accounted for 18 possible confounders of the relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide. We found a robust relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates that was not explained by any of these potential confounders and was not sensitive to model specification. Our work expanded on previous studies not only by analyzing more recent data, but also by adjusting for clustering by year and state and controlling for factors, such as the rate of nonfirearm homicides, that likely capture unspecified variables that may be associated with both gun ownership levels and firearm homicide rates.

The correlation of gun ownership with firearm homicide rates was substantial. Results from our model showed that a 1-SD difference in the gun ownership proxy measure, FS/S, was associated with a 12.9% difference in firearm homicide rates. All other factors being equal, our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower. Because of our use of a proxy measure for gun ownership, we could not conclude that the magnitude of the association between actual household gun ownership rates and homicide rates was the same. However, in a model that incorporated only survey-derived measures of household gun ownership (for 2001, 2002, and 2004), we found that each 1-SD difference in gun ownership was associated with a 24.9% difference in firearm homicide rates.

Our results were consistent with, but generally lower than, previous estimates of the effect of gun ownership on homicide rates. We were able to replicate Miller et al.�s study by restricting our analysis to 1988 to 1997 and controlling for the same variables as they did.

A reverse causal association was also possible. For example, increases in firearm homicide rates could have led to efforts by state residents to acquire guns, thus increasing gun ownership levels.9,25,29,32,34�36,41,79,80 We addressed this question with a lagged variable and found that gun ownership, lagged by either 1 or 2 years, was still a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates. This is consistent with, but does not prove, the hypothesis that changes in gun ownership rates affect subsequent firearm homicide rates. It is not possible in a panel study such as ours to determine causality. Furthermore, although this was a panel study, the variation occurred mainly in the cross section, because the differences in firearm homicide across states were greater than the changes over time.

Variables and sources in study:

treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:06

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Dead Reckoning posted:

Great news: 18 U.S. Code � 922 prohibits anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, so the future is now I guess.

Interesting how people who think we need more gun control tend to be poorly informed about our actual gun laws.

Like how that law prohibits sales of guns, as opposed to possession of firearms as you're asserting?

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:08

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Too many people get shot in America.

Let's do something about that.

Getting shot infringes on someone's pursuit of happiness so I think that trumps the modern day interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:09

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Potato Salad posted:

It pisses me the gently caress off when some son of a bitch makes an argument on letter of law that has been entirely subverted in execution. It's like a Republican pointing to the 13th Amendment and saying, "See, racism is dead. "

yeah, that's the common reaction to basically everything dead reckoning posts ever.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:10

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

MizPiz posted:

Can I get a countdown to when Hillary/the Hillfolk start claiming anything Sanders does is because they pressured him to do it?

Eh, anything that she advocated that was even quasi to the left was attributed to Bernie, so why not?

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:10

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Fraction Jackson posted:

I mean, prior to the Russian Revolution, you still had, for example, violent strikebreakers being OK, but unions not, and heaven forbid a union man try to defend himself. Leftist organizing is always seen as scarier than the opposite, despite the nation being founded by revolution against colonialism and monarchy. Something in the culture is inherently distrustful of left-wing influence even when right-wing groups do far more damage to both lives and property, and while the Red Scare probably made this worse I don't think it started with that.

This is something that will take a long time to fix - and needs to be, for the long-term health of the country.

It makes sense to me that people would naturally fear violence committed to change the status quo more than violence to maintain it. I don't know if that's fixable.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:42

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Dead Reckoning posted:

Great news: 18 U.S. Code � 922 prohibits anyone who is the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, so the future is now I guess.

Well, unless you're a cop, in which case there's an exception.

Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:48

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

tentative8e8op posted:

I feel like we should have a large nationwide phase towards a New York City style registration, purchase permit and licensing system, along with a generous gun buyback program. I feel this is a position just as important as many of the other "litmus test" issues that are backed.

P much this:

Yea I know how NYC gun control works (I had a license until I changed addresses and couldn't get it reissued even after paying the exborant fees, automatically making me a Felon*). Only thing i'd add is making it shall issue, and not requiring the same registration process every time you change addresses. Also full reciprocity everywhere.

Right now it is effectively a ban for everyone except the rich and politically connected.

*To be clear I am not a felon but I could have been arrested and convicted as one as soon as I changed addresses.

Also get rid of the dog whistle "good moral character" bullshit.

ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Sep 14, 2017

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:53

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths.

This essentially sums up my views on it as well. We can't put the gun toothpaste back in the tube at this point, let's just focus on poo poo like making sure we don't destroy the earth and that people have a right to healthcare and poo poo like that.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:53

dwarf74: Sep 2, 2012; Buglord

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Personally though I've basically given up on the gun issue. Sandy Hook demonstrated It's not fixable directly, and it just loses Democrats votes that are needed to fix more urgent issues (health care, etc), and fixing those other issues (mental health care access, etc.) would in turn ameliorate a lot of the drivers of gun crime and gun deaths.

I think this is probably the smarter long-term strategy, too.

Gun control is one thing that rural people seem to care about more than anything else.

# ? Sep 14, 2017 14:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 01:20

Nanomashoes: Aug 18, 2012

Taerkar posted:

Eh, anything that she advocated that was even quasi to the left was attributed to Bernie, so why not?

If only she hadn't recently described her beliefs as "between center left and center right."

# ? Sep 14, 2017 15:08

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »