What does science say about firearms?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2017, 05:45 AM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
I'm betting that they have a very low amount of gun violence in North Korea.

[Image: anigif_enhanced-26851-1450298712-2.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 05:46 AM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
Let's all bash America. Hell, it's not like other areas of the planet have guns.

Many Americans like guns.

Many don't.

It's good T.V.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 02:31 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(09-10-2017 04:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 03:54 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Don't know, but that's not really the point here.
There would likely be far fewer suicides by gun.

Sometimes you have to fight one battle at a time.

But what if it is a pointless battle? If the number of suicides is not reduced, there is no "win".

But it's not pointless. As has been pointed out, while the overall suicide rate may or may not be reduced, the suicide rate in certain categories -- e.g., teens -- could be reduced. In the larger scheme of things, I think it's generally a greater loss when a healthy 15 year old blows his brains out, than when a 75 year old with a terminal illness decides to do it.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 02:35 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(09-10-2017 10:27 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 10:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is not a red herring to point out the weak correlation between gun control laws and murder rates.

Of course, it would not be a red herring to point the weak correlation between gun control laws and homicide rates, but the way you are attempting it is since it relies on a simple manipulation of statistic that fails to include any form of context, thus informed and valid conclusion. If you wanted to demonstrate a weak link between homicide rates and murder rates, you should point out to a study that reveals such a weak correlation but which provide a measure of context as to avoid uncontrolled variable spoiling the conclusion. Furthermore, I didn't claim that gun controls laws had a strong impact on murder rates, but on homicide linked to domestic violence, a subset of murder.

Of course there are a gajillion other factors affecting it - that is my point. Facepalm

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-10-2017, 02:45 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(10-10-2017 05:45 AM)BikerDude Wrote:  I'm betting that they have a very low amount of gun violence in North Korea.

Au contraire...

There' s a shitload of gun violence in N Korea.

Just none of it by civilians.



No

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
10-10-2017, 02:52 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(09-10-2017 04:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 04:21 PM)Dr H Wrote:  This is a specious argument. For one thing, I haven't seen anyone arguing for an outright "ban" on guns. Gun control != gun ban.
For another, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, then there's no point in attempting to control anything, nor in having any laws.
No, that is not the logical conclusion. We already have gun control, we are discussing the extent of it, not its existence.
Ok. Neither is it logical to equate gun control -- which, as you say, we already have -- with a gun ban, which we do not have. Nor could we have a ban, without amending the Constitution.

Quote:People here are calling for banning civilian ownership of whole classes of firearms, so there's that.
What class? Civilian ownership of full automatic weapons is already forbidden, after a fashion. I suppose that could be extended to pre-1986 weapons.
But really, other than as a collection in a museum, I don't see that anyone not in an army fighting a war has any really need for automatic weapons.

Quote:And, if everything but single-shot firearms were banned it would likely have no effect on suicide by firearm. Suicides are accomplished with one shot.
I've not seen any serious proposal to limit firearms to single-shot, either.

Everyone in my family hunts, or hunted, even my grandmother. I hunted when I was younger, but gave it up since the sport didn't really attract me. I saw plenty of dear, elk, rabbits, grouse, pheasant, and the occasional coyote brought down. No one in my family ever owned an automatic firearm, yet they all seem to get their bag quota every season. To the best of my knowledge none of them owns, or has ever owned a semi-automatic, either, nor extended magazines.

My dad, in fact, came to prefer bow-hunting, and got most of his deer that way.
My brother inherited his collection of rifles and shotguns, and still uses them.

I have yet to hear any of them whine about being deprived of their gun rights because they can't fire 30 rounds without reloading, or pack an M240 around.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(09-10-2017 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  In Massachusetts:
  • guns in the home must be secured (gun-lock, locked case or cabinet) unless under direct control;
  • the purchase of a gun requires licensing;
  • the possession of a gun requires a license;
  • licensing requires a safety course;
  • licensing requires a three-level background check (local, state, and federal);
  • ammunition purchase requires a firearms license;
  • ammunition possession requires a firearms license;
Not every state has such requirements.
Indeed. In my state (Oregon):
  • no permit required to purchase a fireare
  • no firearm registration
  • no firearm owner license required
  • campus carry permitted
  • open carry permitted, statewide
  • state law pre-empts local restrictions
  • no restriction on ownership of NFA weapons
  • no restriction on ammunition purchase or possession
Oregon does require a (single) background check for private sales, and it does require a permit to carry concealed (a concealed handgun permit confers the right to carry any firearm concealed).

Other than that, it's pretty wide open.

Quote:Do these sensible laws have the desired effect?
The murder rate in Massachusetts ranks #44 in the U.S.
Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire which have little or no gun licensing rank #47, #48, and #50, respectively.
What these states do have in common is educated populations, decent economies, and low religiosity.
What they also have in common, along with Oregon (#40), are small populations spaced relatively widely apart:
  • Massachusetts - 6.8 million
  • Maine - 1.3 million
  • Vermont - 0.6 million
  • New Hampshire - 1.4 million
  • Oregon - 4.0 million
By contrast, New York has 20 million people, or five times the number in Oregon, living in half the space.
Jam people closer together and the murder rate goes up. Along with the likelihood of a stray shot hitting someone.
Happens with rats, too. Well, except for the shots.

And yet . . . since NY began seriously tightening their guns laws in the mid-1990's, their murder rate went from 13.3/100,000 (1993) to 4.3/100,000 (2008) -- a reduction of almost 97% over 25 years. In 2016 it was down to 3.2/100,000.

Coincidence? Maybe.

Quote:Nearby New York and Connecticut with more restrictive gun laws have higher murder rates, #35 and #33.
Washington, D.C. has among the most restrictive gun laws. It ranks #1 in murder rate.
Funny, that. The DC Metro Police report that the murder rate in DC is down 15%, assault with a dangerous weapon down 30%, and overall violent crime down 25%. The FBI seems to concur.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
10-10-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  In Massachusetts:
  • guns in the home must be secured (gun-lock, locked case or cabinet) unless under direct control;
  • the purchase of a gun requires licensing;
  • the possession of a gun requires a license;
  • licensing requires a safety course;
  • licensing requires a three-level background check (local, state, and federal);
  • ammunition purchase requires a firearms license;
  • ammunition possession requires a firearms license;
Not every state has such requirements.
Indeed. In my state (Oregon):
  • no permit required to purchase a fireare
  • no firearm registration
  • no firearm owner license required
  • campus carry permitted
  • open carry permitted, statewide
  • state law pre-empts local restrictions
  • no restriction on ownership of NFA weapons
  • no restriction on ammunition purchase or possession
Oregon does require a (single) background check for private sales, and it does require a permit to carry concealed (a concealed handgun permit confers the right to carry any firearm concealed).

Other than that, it's pretty wide open.

Quote:Do these sensible laws have the desired effect?
The murder rate in Massachusetts ranks #44 in the U.S.
Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire which have little or no gun licensing rank #47, #48, and #50, respectively.
What these states do have in common is educated populations, decent economies, and low religiosity.
What they also have in common, along with Oregon (#40), are small populations spaced relatively widely apart:
  • Massachusetts - 6.8 million
  • Maine - 1.3 million
  • Vermont - 0.6 million
  • New Hampshire - 1.4 million
  • Oregon - 4.0 million
By contrast, New York has 20 million people, or five times the number in Oregon, living in half the space.
Jam people closer together and the murder rate goes up. Along with the likelihood of a stray shot hitting someone.
Happens with rats, too. Well, except for the shots.

And yet . . . since NY began seriously tightening their guns laws in the mid-1990's, their murder rate went from 13.3/100,000 (1993) to 4.3/100,000 (2008) -- a reduction of almost 97% over 25 years. In 2016 it was down to 3.2/100,000.

Coincidence? Maybe.

Quote:Nearby New York and Connecticut with more restrictive gun laws have higher murder rates, #35 and #33.
Washington, D.C. has among the most restrictive gun laws. It ranks #1 in murder rate.
Funny, that. The DC Metro Police report that the murder rate in DC is down 15%, assault with a dangerous weapon down 30%, and overall violent crime down 25%. The FBI seems to concur.
Are these other new England states or Pennsylvania gun laws over this time and do their assist or harm the attempted gun crime numbers of new York?

A lot is made if Illinois and Chicago failures but sometimes data is stated how 40% of their recovered crime used guns come from legal purchases in Indiana and Wisconsin. And Gary Indiana itself was a crime capitol sometimes. But I'm an unisolated way, both these placed are 1-2 hrs out of Chicago, the area around can harm. Idk other areas neighbors laws

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 06:26 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(10-10-2017 04:00 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 09:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  In Massachusetts:
  • guns in the home must be secured (gun-lock, locked case or cabinet) unless under direct control;
  • the purchase of a gun requires licensing;
  • the possession of a gun requires a license;
  • licensing requires a safety course;
  • licensing requires a three-level background check (local, state, and federal);
  • ammunition purchase requires a firearms license;
  • ammunition possession requires a firearms license;
Not every state has such requirements.
Indeed. In my state (Oregon):
  • no permit required to purchase a fireare
  • no firearm registration
  • no firearm owner license required
  • campus carry permitted
  • open carry permitted, statewide
  • state law pre-empts local restrictions
  • no restriction on ownership of NFA weapons
  • no restriction on ammunition purchase or possession
Oregon does require a (single) background check for private sales, and it does require a permit to carry concealed (a concealed handgun permit confers the right to carry any firearm concealed).

Other than that, it's pretty wide open.

Quote:Do these sensible laws have the desired effect?
The murder rate in Massachusetts ranks #44 in the U.S.
Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire which have little or no gun licensing rank #47, #48, and #50, respectively.
What these states do have in common is educated populations, decent economies, and low religiosity.
What they also have in common, along with Oregon (#40), are small populations spaced relatively widely apart:
  • Massachusetts - 6.8 million
  • Maine - 1.3 million
  • Vermont - 0.6 million
  • New Hampshire - 1.4 million
  • Oregon - 4.0 million
By contrast, New York has 20 million people, or five times the number in Oregon, living in half the space.
Jam people closer together and the murder rate goes up. Along with the likelihood of a stray shot hitting someone.
Happens with rats, too. Well, except for the shots.

And yet . . . since NY began seriously tightening their guns laws in the mid-1990's, their murder rate went from 13.3/100,000 (1993) to 4.3/100,000 (2008) -- a reduction of almost 97% over 25 years. In 2016 it was down to 3.2/100,000.

97% reduction? How do you get that? Consider

Quote:Coincidence? Maybe.

The rate nationwide went down including in places where gun restrictions were reduced.

Quote:
Quote:Nearby New York and Connecticut with more restrictive gun laws have higher murder rates, #35 and #33.
Washington, D.C. has among the most restrictive gun laws. It ranks #1 in murder rate.
Funny, that. The DC Metro Police report that the murder rate in DC is down 15%, assault with a dangerous weapon down 30%, and overall violent crime down 25%. The FBI seems to concur.

Murder rates across the country have been getting lower for the last 25 years so until you correct for that, the fact that one particular locale's rate has gone down is not particularly significant.

For ten of those years there was the national Assault Weapons Ban which had no demonstrable effect on crime as it occurred in the middle of a 25-year trend.

I will continue to maintain that the evidence supports only a weak correlation between very restrictive gun laws and a reduction in violent crime.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: What does science say about firearms?
(10-10-2017 02:52 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(09-10-2017 04:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, that is not the logical conclusion. We already have gun control, we are discussing the extent of it, not its existence.
Ok. Neither is it logical to equate gun control -- which, as you say, we already have -- with a gun ban, which we do not have. Nor could we have a ban, without amending the Constitution.

Gun control advocates are pushing for bans on entire classes of firearm. Remember the 10-year assault weapons ban?

Quote:
Quote:People here are calling for banning civilian ownership of whole classes of firearms, so there's that.
What class? Civilian ownership of full automatic weapons is already forbidden, after a fashion. I suppose that could be extended to pre-1986 weapons.

Automatic weapons are not forbidden.

Quote:But really, other than as a collection in a museum, I don't see that anyone not in an army fighting a war has any really need for automatic weapons.

Quote:And, if everything but single-shot firearms were banned it would likely have no effect on suicide by firearm. Suicides are accomplished with one shot.
I've not seen any serious proposal to limit firearms to single-shot, either.

Everyone in my family hunts, or hunted, even my grandmother. I hunted when I was younger, but gave it up since the sport didn't really attract me. I saw plenty of dear, elk, rabbits, grouse, pheasant, and the occasional coyote brought down. No one in my family ever owned an automatic firearm, yet they all seem to get their bag quota every season. To the best of my knowledge none of them owns, or has ever owned a semi-automatic, either, nor extended magazines.

Many hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-automatic. I suspect they likely did own one.

Quote:My dad, in fact, came to prefer bow-hunting, and got most of his deer that way.
My brother inherited his collection of rifles and shotguns, and still uses them.

I have yet to hear any of them whine about being deprived of their gun rights because they can't fire 30 rounds without reloading, or pack an M240 around.

Where, exactly, have I advocated for the ownership of automatic weapons? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: