School shooting Florida

[ServiceSoon]

It probably does reduce "rational violence"

Reducing the prevalence of firearms would reduce the risk of someone getting the drop on you, so probably all violence would decrease.

ponderingturtle was only taking it to its logical conclusion that it should be a reasonable defence for someone to say that the saw a cop from a notorious force and shot them pre-emptively in self defence because they were worried that they would otherwise be shot for no reason. After all, it seems to work for the cops.

One could postulate as such, however, real-world examples have demonstrated that is not the case. When you start to analyse the data it becomes more apparent why that is.

As evidence I submit Australia, a model some suggest that the US should duplicate. Statisticians were unable to satisfactorily prove that the 1997 draconian ban and mandatory confiscation of firearms had any effect on the already declining homicide rates. This isn't cherry-picking because there are other examples of outright bans in other countries that have the same result, 'inconclusive.' More success has been achieved by correlating economic distress (poverty) and homicides.

If such draconian restrictions pertaining to firearms had immeasurable results, then the suggestions being discussed in modern-day American politics are laughable.

The programs suggested to tackle deaths by firearms also come at an expense. It'd be more intelligent and socially responsible to finance and implement programs nationally after they had been proven effective in neighboring states. One of the national policy changes I agree with is fixing the NICS. Everybody is quick to question the wisdom of the founding fathers, and yet, the intent of the 10th amendment could prove beneficial here, if we let it.

One of the go-to strategies that firearm prohibitionist use is to show misleading graphs that show homicides committed by firearms decreasing after gun control is passed. That is misleading because it's the overall reduction of homicides that are a more honest indicator of the success of such legislation. Root-cause analysis is paramount in reducing preventable homicidal deaths. Peddling fear and using emotion will not bring about beneficial solutions. That is what conservatism is about; fully understanding the situation before rushing to pass feel-good legislation.

 

[MikeG]

......As evidence I submit Australia, a model some suggest that the US should duplicate. Statisticians were unable to satisfactorily prove that the 1997 draconian ban and mandatory confiscation of firearms had any effect on the already declining homicide rates...........

To YOUR satisfaction, of course. It's great when you get to write your own pre-determined conclusion to everyone else's experience, and set your own bar as high as you like to make absolutely sure that no-one else's experience can possibly teach you anything.

World class bollocks you've just spouted there. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop yelling endlessly la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

 

[sadhatter]

The value of the straw market has just crashed due to a large, cheap, easily accessable deposit being found in this post.

Lets break it down. Bob is a carpenter of 25 years building a wooden box for fun. He has nails he needs to drive into some wood. He does not have a hammer. He decides to use the metal handle of his rubber mallet. Is Bob going to be as efficient at driving the nails in to the wood using a rubber mallet handle as he normally would be with a claw hammer?

If he is an idiot your analogy works.

If he is not, he is going to spend a bit longer either to find or make a better replacement than a *********** handle. He does this because it is easy to understand and modify most tools if needed. Guns are no different.

But good job, if anyone who needs a calculator to count their toes wants to go on a rampage.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I agree that effect of Australian ban are unclear. There are studies which concludes there is some effect, there are studies which conclude there is no effect.

 

[Meadmaker]

One could postulate as such, however, real-world examples have demonstrated that is not the case. When you start to analyse the data it becomes more apparent why that is.

As evidence I submit Australia, a model some suggest that the US should duplicate. Statisticians were unable to satisfactorily prove that the 1997 draconian ban and mandatory confiscation of firearms had any effect on the already declining homicide rates. This isn't cherry-picking because there are other examples of outright bans in other countries that have the same result, 'inconclusive.' More success has been achieved by correlating economic distress (poverty) and homicides.

If such draconian restrictions pertaining to firearms had immeasurable results, then the suggestions being discussed in modern-day American politics are laughable.

The programs suggested to tackle deaths by firearms also come at an expense. It'd be more intelligent and socially responsible to finance and implement programs nationally after they had been proven effective in neighboring states. One of the national policy changes I agree with is fixing the NICS. Everybody is quick to question the wisdom of the founding fathers, and yet, the intent of the 10th amendment could prove beneficial here, if we let it.

One of the go-to strategies that firearm prohibitionist use is to show misleading graphs that show homicides committed by firearms decreasing after gun control is passed. That is misleading because it's the overall reduction of homicides that are a more honest indicator of the success of such legislation. Root-cause analysis is paramount in reducing preventable homicidal deaths. Peddling fear and using emotion will not bring about beneficial solutions. That is what conservatism is about; fully understanding the situation before rushing to pass feel-good legislation.

Let me see if I understand. After the Aussie gun seizure, homicide rates declined, but it's possible they would have declined anyway, so we can't tell if it made any difference. Did I get that right?

From a statistician's perspective, that's correct. A sample size of one will never really show anything anyway.

Still, if it worked once, it might be a coincidence, but it might actually have worked. The argument of "Well, sure, it worked, but we don't know if it was really because of that or if there was some other thing that caused it" is always very persuasive to those who already agree with you.

I don't advocate Aussie-style gun seizure, but your argument against it isn't very powerful. I think that to strengthen your argument you would have to include some variation of "This bad thing happened after the gun seizures."
You did note the cost of implementing such a proposal in the United States, and that's a legitimate argument.

 

[sadhatter]

To YOUR satisfaction, of course. It's great when you get to write your own pre-determined conclusion to everyone else's experience, and set your own bar as high as you like to make absolutely sure that no-one else's experience can possibly teach you anything.

World class bollocks you've just spouted there. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop yelling endlessly la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

I was looking at your post and didn't see any statistics or facts refuting him.

Did you just forget to link?

 

[MikeG]

I was looking at your post and didn't see any statistics or facts refuting him.

Did you just forget to link?

Just point out his stats and links first, hey?

 

[Aridas]

It baffles me that the NRA et. al. are pushing the "failure of law enforcement" on this.

Why would it baffle you? It's actually a quite legitimate issue on its own, after all, and it's completely fair to direct some of the attention towards it.

So in response to the failure in this case, what we look like we will get will be schools with lots of people packing heat, and a system where neighbors, families, and school officials are encouraged to turn in suspicious characters for investigation, and the authorities will be required to keep records of those reports and of the findings. What could go wrong?

The former is overall bad. The latter, on the other hand... If I understand correctly, the red flag laws actually in play (I haven't seen Florida's new one, but I assume it's similar) are designed to minimize abuse. They fairly clearly save lives, overall, but on a notably limited scale.

 

[ServiceSoon]

To YOUR satisfaction, of course. It's great when you get to write your own pre-determined conclusion to everyone else's experience, and set your own bar as high as you like to make absolutely sure that no-one else's experience can possibly teach you anything.

World class bollocks you've just spouted there. Take your fingers out of your ears and stop yelling endlessly la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you.

It has less to do with my satisfaction and more to do with the story of maths. If my fingers are in my ears it's because I'm blocking the noise and instead using the organ between them ears.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I agree that effect of Australian ban are unclear. There are studies which concludes there is some effect, there are studies which conclude there is no effect.

Thank you. There are other potential contributors to the homicide rate for which we have established as having a stronger link. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on those?

 

[ServiceSoon]

Let me see if I understand. After the Aussie gun seizure, homicide rates declined, but it's possible they would have declined anyway, so we can't tell if it made any difference. Did I get that right?

From a statistician's perspective, that's correct. A sample size of one will never really show anything anyway.

Still, if it worked once, it might be a coincidence, but it might actually have worked. The argument of "Well, sure, it worked, but we don't know if it was really because of that or if there was some other thing that caused it" is always very persuasive to those who already agree with you.

I don't advocate Aussie-style gun seizure, but your argument against it isn't very powerful. I think that to strengthen your argument you would have to include some variation of "This bad thing happened after the gun seizures."
You did note the cost of implementing such a proposal in the United States, and that's a legitimate argument.

Close. Like most (all?) developed countries, the homicide rate in Australia was declining before the 1996 Confiscation and Ban took effect. For that reason, it is very difficult, even for the most skilled criminologist, to determine it's affect. While there are some statisticians who believe there was a positive effect, the inter-rater reliability among the profession is unsatisfactory.

Other examples of 1st world countries where gun prohibition failed are Ireland, UK, and Canada. I respectfully decline to engage in conversation based on the narrative you've set in your last paragraph.

 

[Dr.Sid]

But then, Australia ban was focused more toward mass shootings.
No mass shooting happened since then. But not many happened before. Too little data.

General crime and suicides are mostly done with handguns, and those were not banned, just licensed. And as any country with little regulation, there are still tons of black guns on the market. So I think we couldn't even expect any big difference in suicides and general crime. And it would be the same in US.

 

[Kestrel]

But then, Australia ban was focused more toward mass shootings.
No mass shooting happened since then. But not many happened before. Too little data.

General crime and suicides are mostly done with handguns, and those were not banned, just licensed. And as any country with little regulation, there are still tons of black guns on the market. So I think we couldn't even expect any big difference in suicides and general crime. And it would be the same in US.

Some gun lovers seem to want a black market so they can offload their stockpile of AR-15s at a premium price.

Getting a handgun license in Australia for anything except a .22 target pistol is highly restricted. Even those are only allowed to be stored at the range. After the buyback, Australia saw a large decline in the firearms suicide rate with no evidence of replacement by other methods.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Some gun lovers seem to want a black market so they can offload their stockpile of AR-15s at a premium price.

Getting a handgun license in Australia for anything except a .22 target pistol is highly restricted. Even those are only allowed to be stored at the range. After the buyback, Australia saw a large decline in the firearms suicide rate with no evidence of replacement by other methods.

That's the problem. You state is as a fact. But it's not. It's quite complex statistical problem, and there is no consensus on the result.

Check this article on wiki, which has several links to studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research

Problem is you don't have another Australia which didn't pass the NFA. You can't directly compare. You must use models, comparison with other types of crimes, and other indirect methods. Really hardest argument I found is 'Australia is yet to see another mass shooting till NFA'.

As for US, I think comparison between different states might be more interesting. I wouldn't expect change in federal law any time soon, much less changing the 2nd amendment, but lot can be done on state level, and almost all states have some form of extra regulation.
Couldn't find any such comparison.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Some gun lovers seem to want a black market so they can offload their stockpile of AR-15s at a premium price.

Hey, you might be up to something .. tell them all their guns will greatly rise in price, and maybe you'll get the support

 

[jimbob]

Other examples of 1st world countries where gun prohibition failed are Ireland, UK, and Canada. I respectfully decline to engage in conversation based on the narrative you've set in your last paragraph.

What does this mean? None of these countries have gun prohibition, all have stricter gun laws than the US and the stricter the gun laws, the less gun crime there is.

 

[jimbob]

That's the problem. You state is as a fact. But it's not. It's quite complex statistical problem, and there is no consensus on the result.

Check this article on wiki, which has several links to studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia#Research

Problem is you don't have another Australia which didn't pass the NFA. You can't directly compare. You must use models, comparison with other types of crimes, and other indirect methods. Really hardest argument I found is 'Australia is yet to see another mass shooting till NFA'.

As for US, I think comparison between different states might be more interesting. I wouldn't expect change in federal law any time soon, much less changing the 2nd amendment, but lot can be done on state level, and almost all states have some form of extra regulation.
Couldn't find any such comparison.

The trouble with comparing states is that there are no checks on the boundaries, so it's quite easy for guns to cross state lines.

 

[Hungry81]

If he is an idiot your analogy works.

If he is not, he is going to spend a bit longer either to find or make a better replacement than a *********** handle. He does this because it is easy to understand and modify most tools if needed. Guns are no different.

But good job, if anyone who needs a calculator to count their toes wants to go on a rampage.

Oh good, you agree with me then. Some tools are better than others at similar jobs. Just like some guns are better than other guns. If i wanted to shoot lots of fast moving things quickly, I would be an idiot if instead of gaining easy access to a large capacity semi auto, I used a small capacity bolt action or musket.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Other examples of 1st world countries where gun prohibition failed are Ireland, UK, and Canada. I respectfully decline to engage in conversation based on the narrative you've set in your last paragraph.

What has failed in the UK? No mass shootings since restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic rifles and handguns were put in place?

Apart from those categories there is no 'prohibition' on guns. We have an entire thread about it.
I used to own a semi auto 22 AR, a lovely Anschutz Match rifle and a Lee Enfield Mk4.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

You suuuure love making up nonsense and trying to shove it into other's mouths!


When more guns being carried around seems to directly lead to more violent crime occurring on average... the two are definitely linked.

I'm sure you can provide statistical confirmation of that statement depending on how you define guns, carry, and violent crime. Just as I call upon my knowledge of rural Pennsylvania during buck season to prove that everybody in town can be armed and there will be no crime, violent or otherwise.

Are guns the whole problem? Of course not. That was never the claim in the first place, though.

When the only solution being offered to stop school shootings is to reduce the number of guns, it sounds like the whole problem is being blamed on the number of guns. When the solution being offered to stop school shootings is to ban a type of gun that already been banned or ban a type of gun for which other guns can be substituted, it still sounds like the whole problem is being blamed on the number of guns but that the people offering up the solution are stupid, uninformed, and/or have ulterior motives.

So much half-assedness in your attempt at an argument here. I'll grade it with an F, because it seems to be one crappy fallacy after another here, presented in a rather unfocused manner.

When your rebuttal is "What you said is so stupid it's obvious you're wrong" means you don't have a rebuttal. Don't worry, there's alot of that around here.

Blaming the NRA for the actual things that they've been doing is entirely fair. They do a lot of good things, yes, but unfortunately, they've also done and been doing a lot of quite objectionable things that make tragedies far more likely to occur. Calling for the ban was already happening, regardless, though. Parkland just made the calls all the more poignant and motivated.

I'd be interested in hearing what good things you think the NRA has been doing. Blaming the NRA for the actual things they've been doing is entirely fair. Blaming them for the failures at Parkland is entirely unfair. They don't advocate for letting mentally unstable people acquire guns. They don't advocate that law enforcement and social services ignore multiple warnings about a dangerous individual. The blame for Parkland is entirely on social services and especially the liar Sheriff Scott Israel for his failure to prevent this from happening and failure to stop it once it had.