Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (part 3)

[P.J. Denyer]

UK homicide rates were low before any gun control.

Before 1824? Okay. Or are you referring to The Crossbows Act of 1541?

 

[Trausti]

Before 1824? Okay. Or are you referring to The Crossbows Act of 1541?

The first significant UK gun law was in 1920.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8224/

 

[arthwollipot]

THE AUSTRALIAN FIREARMS BUYBACK AND ITS EFFECT ON GUN DEATHS

I post a sourced scientific paper from the high-impact peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and you respond with an unsourced paper published on (checks) johnrlott.tripod.com.

Yeah, that's how to argue.

 

[bluesjnr]

I post a sourced scientific paper from the high-impact peer-reviewed journal Injury Prevention and you respond with an unsourced paper published on (checks) johnrlott.tripod.com.

Yeah, that's how to argue.

You're better than this art. How "not" to argue is to avoid fallacious argument (you, of course, know this). Arguing against the source without checking the actual source could be described as a genetic fallacy. Again, knowing the body of your word, you're probably aware of this fallacy.

The source of the paper referenced by Trausti is the Contemporary Economic Policy journal. Here's a look at how reliable it is and how it matches your requirements.

Contemporary Economic Policy is a reliable academic journal because it is peer-reviewed and published by Wiley, a reputable publisher. Its reliability is supported by its rigorous standards, which include a peer-review process, author guidelines on ethical standards, and its publication by the Western Economic Association International (WEAI). The journal has also published work from notable economists, including Nobel laureates

It, the journal, has a scimago h index of 59*. Scimago ratings measure cites, it is influenced by output of course. It has an impact factor of 1.7*. I would consider the paper to be within the discipline of Political Science/Public policy where, although relative, a score of 1.5 -3 is generally good.

The paper was written by Wang-Sheng Lee who is an associate professor at the Centre for Development Economics and Sustainability at Monash University. He has a personal scimago rating of 20 and co-authored by Sandy Suardi who is Professor Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, Wollongong. He has a personal scimago rating of 23. This shows that their peers aren't ignoring them and their work is considered reliable.

But the big question relating to my answer to your fallacious response is how do the two compare? Here you go.

Yours -

The 2024 Impact Factor for Injury Prevention is 2.0. The 5-year Impact Factor is 3.4. Other metrics include a CiteScore of 5.7 and a Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) of 0.74. Impact Factor (2024): 2.0 5-Year Impact Factor: 3.4 CiteScore: 5.7 Journal Citation Indicator (JCI): 0.74 Other metrics: Eigenfactor is 0.00452 and it ranks 215 out of 419 in the Public, Environmental & Occupational Health category.

Trausti's

The 2024 Impact Factor for Contemporary Economic Policy is 1.868, as calculated by exaly.com. Other sources list a similar 2024 Impact Factor of 1.7, notes a 2025 Impact Score of 1.6, a 2-year Impact Factor of 1.5, a 5-year Impact Factor of 1.4, and a CiteScore of 3.6. 2024 Impact Factor: 1.868 2025 Impact Score: 1.6 2-Year Impact Factor: 1.5 5-Year Impact Factor: 1.4 CiteScore: 3.6

I would make the case that journal lags behind your source but can be relied upon.

Now that we've got that out of the way let the general sniping in favour of considering factual data re-commence.

*Research.com - specifically

 

[plague311]

You're better than this art.

Then why not link to the study, why link to someone's interpretation of it?

I mean, neat catch and all, but...

 

[bluesjnr]

Then why not link to the study, why link to someone's interpretation of it?

I mean, neat catch and all, but...

I don't understand? What study do you want me to link to that hasn't already been posted? The one that art was responding to? Surely not?

 

[plague311]

I don't understand? What study do you want me to link to that hasn't already been posted? The one that art was responding to? Surely not?

Despite quoting you, it was more of a general question. The stats you quoted are from a study, right? Right. So if the stats are from that study, why link to "johnrlott.tripod.com"? If I were Arth I wouldn't have clicked on that ◊◊◊◊ either. That's a completely reasonable action to take, especially in today's age. I have no reason to trust that site, and not trusting it isn't an ad hom. It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cybersecurity lol.

 

[bluesjnr]

Despite quoting you, it was more of a general question. OK, got that.

The stats you quoted are from a study, right? What stats are you talking about? Do you mean the stats pertaining to how reliable the original article referenced by art and linked by Trausti was, that's all I quoted and linked to? You're all over the place here?

Right. So if the stats are from that study, why link to "johnrlott.tripod.com"? I didn't but why not? The bona-fide, peer reviewed article was available from there! I get that John R lott may be, in your eyes, a rabid pro gun nut but he didn't write the article! Does it support Lott's views? Perhaps and then again perhaps it gives a fair and balanced picture on the results of the Australian buy back but you'll never know because, in this case, you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears, cover your eyes and go blah, blah, blah! You're so entrenched in your position that you won't consider anything at all that might, any small way, give you pause for thought.

If I were Arth I wouldn't have clicked on that ◊◊◊◊ either. You/he didn't/don't have to, see below. Anyway, can you tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that the link was whatever disparaging word the censor is hiding?

That's a completely reasonable action to take, especially in today's age. A more reasonable action, in my opinion, would be to consider whether the article might assist you in understanding the matter at hand from a different perspective, taking 30 seconds to look up John Lott and then being in a better position to decide if you wished to read the article by clicking through to it. Failing that or finding John Lott questionable, you could have searched for the article directly by inputting it's name into your chosen search engine and said search engine would have taken you to it, by-passing that dastardly John R Lott and his unscrupulous site altogether.

I have no reason to trust that site. You have no reason not to by exactly the same measure of research you put into your decision.

and not trusting it isn't an ad hom. I was specific and never mentioned ad hom. The reason for this is that a genetic fallacy has a different focus, namely the argument's origin or history and not the character of the person making the argument. Why are you attempting to make the case that I did?

It's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ cybersecurity lol. Oh FFS! Yes, by all means be careful online but when you have so many other avenues to the source article this is the poorest reason (and yet the best you can think of) that I have ever heard not to consider a, possibly, opposing position.

 

[arthwollipot]

Please learn how to multiquote.

 

[bluesjnr]

Please learn how to multiquote.

That's all you've got? I wanted to respond to plauge331's post point by point and the forum software kept breaking responses into those individual "boxes". I'll make deal with you though, I'll try and do better if you follow suit. How does that sound?

 

[arthwollipot]

That's all you've got? I wanted to respond to plauge331's post point by point and the forum software kept breaking responses into those individual "boxes". I'll make deal with you though, I'll try and do better if you follow suit. How does that sound?

Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. That's what we want it to do. Please let it do it.

 

[bluesjnr]

Yes, that's what it's supposed to do. What? like this?

That's what we want it to do. Then you won't have any problem seeing this. If that is the case what was your problem with my previous post?

Please let it do it. I did, as you could and can plainly see. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you, what is your complaint?

All this because I pointed out the flaw in your, "Yeah that's how to argue" jibe. Classic diversionary tactics following #2224.

I'll back out, having said my piece, to prevent further derail.

 

[arthwollipot]

To be clear, I wasn't attempting to counter your argument.

You're better than this art. How "not" to argue is to avoid fallacious argument (you, of course, know this). Arguing against the source without checking the actual source could be described as a genetic fallacy. Again, knowing the body of your word, you're probably aware of this fallacy.

This

The source of the paper referenced by Trausti is the Contemporary Economic Policy journal. Here's a look at how reliable it is and how it matches your requirements.

Is how

It, the journal, has a scimago h index of 59*. Scimago ratings measure cites, it is influenced by output of course. It has an impact factor of 1.7*. I would consider the paper to be within the discipline of Political Science/Public policy where, although relative, a score of 1.5 -3 is generally good

You do a multiquote

The paper was written by Wang-Sheng Lee who is an associate professor at the Centre for Development Economics and Sustainability at Monash University. He has a personal scimago rating of 20 and co-authored by Sandy Suardi who is Professor Faculty of Business and Law, School of Business, Wollongong. He has a personal scimago rating of 23. This shows that their peers aren't ignoring them and their work is considered reliable.

Reply.

If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.

Anyway, I lived through 1996 and I saw the response to the Port Arthur massacre unfold on television. I watched as political will rallied around the shock and horror of the atrocity. I saw the anti-gun-control protests, I watched as Tim Fischer argued his case in the rural constituencies and I saw gun owners across the country come around to the necessity of gun control. I have lived through it.

And the fact remains, since we're in the thread specifically about mass shootings, there were 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before 1996, and absolutely zero in more than ten years after. Huge drops were recorded in the rates of firearm deaths of all kinds following the reforms. These are statistical facts. Gun control works. Restricting ownership of semiautomatic and pump-action weapons works. Tight regulations around who is allowed to own a firearm and for what purpose works. The only reason the occasional, very rare mass shootings occur in Australia today is that those tight restrictions have over time been eroded, usually by politicians influenced by the American gun lobby.

Also, it has to be said, this one event in Australia triggered a massive push for gun law reform. How many massacres have there been in the US since 1996 and how has the government and the public responded? Thoughts and prayers.

Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.

 

[bluesjnr]

To be clear, I wasn't attempting to counter your argument.

OK.

This

Is how

You do a multiquote

I can't understand why I went the route I did? Of course I know how to multi-quote. Thanks for the kick up the arse!

Reply.

Why thank you.

If you think I'm trying to rebut your response to me, you are wrong. I accept your analysis. I did not do the research. But, it has to be said, neither did Trausti. If he had posted the link to the original paper, rather than a link to a PDF without a landing page on some dude's blog, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it.

Fair enough but I feel that a little bit of effort on your part wouldn't have hurt. Did you/will you ever read the paper?

...snip... Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.

A point not in contention by me.

 

[plague311]

I can't even respond to your post because of how you posted it, but wow did you ever read a lot into it. Holy ◊◊◊◊. First off, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care about the childishness that this thread has become and I don't care at all about whoever it is at tripod.whatever. I'm a network security guy that manages 600 users and not clicking on weird ass links is step 1. That's literally network security 101.

My entire point was that if someone were quoting stats from a study, then just use the study and link to the study. Some random guys blog isn't a reliable source, but I've already invested more in this than I care to.

Grats on learning how to use the software. Have a good one.

 

[Trausti]

Gun control works. And that simple fact sends a certain cohort of Americans completely mad.

It's your cargo cult thinking that drives us mad.

 

[Trausti]

When toting guns in high school was cool

Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.

There were at least three shooting ranges in public schools, the DOE said, including Curtis HS on Staten Island and Erasmus Hall HS in Brooklyn.

Another inside Far Rockaway HS in Queens, which closed in 2011, is shown in a black-and-white archival photo from May 1929 displaying a compartmentalized gun range with at least five windows to shoot from and cranks for students to pull the targets back and forth.


“To accommodate the kids, they even made them these little pull-out benches they can kneel on to shoot from that position or even lie down to shoot,” said Darren Leung, owner of Westside Rifle & Pistol Range in Chelsea, describing the equipment seen in the 89-year-old photo. “What an excellent design.”

Shooting clubs were popular in many schools, even if they didn’t have gun ranges.

 

[Thermal]

When toting guns in high school was cool

Most people can handle their guns responsibly. Then we have a Sandy Hook, and these same responsible people think "hey you know this isn't really working out, what with that one in a million that shoots up a school. I think the socially responsible thing to do is let myself be more heavily regulated as a precaution against those who are not responsible".

I like guns, and that's where I'm at.

 

[arthwollipot]

As the great philosopher Jim Jeffries said:

"There is one argument and one argument alone for having a gun. And this is the argument: '◊◊◊◊ off. I like guns.' It's not the best argument, but it's all you've got."

 

[Dabop]

The stupid thing is that so many yanks think gun control just means 'they're comin to take mah gunzzzz'- when what it is about is regulation and control....

Ironically when I was still living in NSW, AFTER Port Arthur and the gun buybacks, there were MORE gun owners per capita than most of the US (and still is lol)- what you dont see a lot of is the 'gun fondlers' - you can still get a rifle or shottie (hell its not impossible to get a pistol licence even)

What we DO have however is regulations (that mostly work) that restrict free and easy access at any time to basically anyone... you need to have proper storage and security, pass the backgrounds checks and you can get licenced ...

Ironically its the 'free guns for all' nutters that have caused the most impact on gun ownership in Australia in recent times- those who import illegally and have illegal and unregistered weapons (and have so often been the ones going on shooting rampages in recent times)- which ironically leads to public backlash and pushes BY THE PUBLIC to tighten gun laws further...
Its the 'sovcits' and the like that have been behind most of the recent shootouts with police in the last few years (still countable on a single hand in the last decade mind you lol- FAR less than the US and its 'shootout a day') that have had people agitating for complete bans- good work morons.... (and why they likely weren't allowed to legally own guns in the first place...)

Personally I would be happy for the regs allowing ownership to stay as they are here- but possession of an unregistered/illegal weapon should be bumped up and put in the same category as premeditated murder....
Lock em up and throw away the keys....