Why gun control push fizzled?

[Sabretooth]

Some data I found shows in 2010 Texas actually had a higher homicide rate, 5.0 vs. 4.9. For gun murders California was higher, 3.4 vs. 3.2.

Not sure where you got your numbers, but 2011 CDC numbers tell a different story...let's take a look at some real stats:

Regarding Gun Homicide Death Rates, these are the top 15 states:

State | Homicide Rate | Gun Homicide | Gun Hom. Rank | % Legal Owners
Louisiana|12.74|10.13|1st|44.1%
Maryland|9.37|6.95|2nd|21.3%
Mississippi|7.83|5.55|3rd|55.3%
California |6.67|4.82|4th| 21.2%
Nevada|7.37|4.72|5th|33.8%
So. Carolina|6.86|4.64|6th|42.3%
Illinois|6.10|4.59|7th|20.2%
Michigan|6.36|4.55|8th|38.4%
Arizona|6.28|4.54|9th|31.1%
New Mexico|8.88|4.44|10th|34.8%
Georgia|6.87|4.43|11th|40.3%
Missouri|6.15|4.23|12th|41.7%
Arkansas|6.40|4.01|13th|55.3%
Texas |6.07|3.93|14th| 35.9%
Tennessee|5.95|3.76|15th|43.9%

I don't see any damning evidence that suggests stricter laws translates into less crime. However, if we were to take a direct comparison between CA and TX, there is a difference, but not the way you would approve.

CA gun homicides rate at 4.82 per 100,000 with a 21.2% legal ownership of firearms.
TX gun homicides rate at 3.93 per 100,000 with a 35.9% legal ownership of firearms.

So there are more legal guns in TX, less restrictive gun laws, but their GHR is lower.

For S&G's, look at Arkansas, a whopping 55.3% ownership rate and their GHR is 4.01...still significantly lower than CA.

For even more math fun, look at Wyoming on the CDC website. A 59.7% ownership rate and their GHR is 0.59.

Now, you're going to point out that, hey, Louisiana is the clear front runner here...they have a lot of guns and their rate sucks! Yeah, well, Louisiana (and in particular, New Orleans) is a cesspool with a political leadership that couldn't count to 11 with their shoes on.

But let's be realistic. If Texas has a) less restrictive gun laws than California, and b) a slightly lower homicide rate, it doesn't necessarily follow that a produced b. It just doesn't. No matter how much we might want to believe that. You still need some data -- something -- to demonstrate the theory.

You show numbers that disprove your point, but then make the suggestion that they don't? How strange.

I've asked about this, the self defense issue. How often are guns used for protection? For burglaries or home invasions they could obviously be very valuable. But how often are they used? Are there any figures showing the number of incidents? Are there any figures showing what model of handgun provides the best protection?

I answered this question with some depth back in post 165, and you ignored it. I'm starting to think you are being intentionally disingenuous.

The problem is, this issue is not universally accepted as legitimate. There are other ways to protect your home.

Like cannons, tripwires, and poison darts? I think that's a good idea.

I understand some of you find this line of discussion infuriating. To me that just proves this is a very emotional issue. What I'm suggesting is, if you're going to try and make home defense an important criteria for public policy than you have to be willing and able to demonstrate it's effective.

Why do we need to prove our side and not vice versa? I've given you some numbers to work with, now you show me why super-strict gun control is the answer to all our prayers?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not sure where you got your numbers, but 2011 CDC numbers tell a different story...let's take a look at some real stats:

Regarding Gun Homicide Death Rates, these are the top 15 states:

Can someone with better skills than me plot these numbers into some sort of meaningful graph so that it is easier to see if there are any correlations?

Sorry, tables just don't get through to me as well as graphs. It's a weakness of mine to focus too much on the bark of the trees to notice the tree, much less the forrest.

ETA: What does "% Legal Owners" mean?

 

[newyorkguy]

By a permit/certificate system? Do you know how the current CCW system in New York works? I'm just trying to get a handle on how much I have to explain.

No I don't.

That alone would help, but to be truly effective enforcement priority would have to change to target illegal weapons and weapon violations and DAs would have to pursue the charges.

In the part of the state where I live the police have put enormous effort into trying to get illegal guns off the street. When you say "enforcement" at what level are you speaking of? The New York State Legislature or the cop in the street.

If you are carrying illegally in New York City and are caught it's mandatory jail time. A pro football player, Plaxico Burress, went to prison after being charged with unlawful possession. The public remembers incidents like that. So when someone says law enforcement is NOT targeting weapon violations it doesn't sound right.

 

[Sabretooth]

Can someone with better skills than me plot these numbers into some sort fo meaningful graph so that it is easier to see if there are any correlations?

Sorry, tables just don't get through to me as well as graphs. It's a weakness of mine to focus too much on the bark of the trees to notice the tree, much less the forrest.

I can try. What exactly would you like me to plot?

ETA: What does "% Legal Owners" mean?

Percentage of legal gun owners in a particular state. I got the numbers from here.

 

[WildCat]

Why?

I wasn't basing my argument on Heller and neither was the post I was responding to. I was responding to his assertion, not case law.

Since you are familiar, do you think there is there something in Heller that could add to this conversation? If so, please quote it.

I am not afraid of where the SCOTUS stands on gun control, I think they are wrong in interpreting it as an individual right, but correct in saying that it is a right that can be regulated.

Heller defines what is meant by "bear arms".

And I'm always amazed by people who say that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment aren't the same "people" in the Preamble, Article I, the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment.

Who are "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment in your view?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I can try. What exactly would you like me to plot?

What do you think the data shows? I assumed there was some correlation in the data that could be shown visually, other than just cherry picking the numbers from a couple of states. If there is no correlation, that may be best shown via graphs too, I guess.

I'm not accusing you fo anything, you brought data to the discussion which is always good. I just can't digest the importance of the data from that presentation.

Percentage of legal gun owners in a particular state. I got the numbers from here.

OK, so percentage of each states population. Thanks, that makes some sense, although it doesn't really say much about the regulations in each state. But nothings perfect . . .

 

[newyorkguy]

<snip>
Why do we need to prove our side and not vice versa? I've given you some numbers to work with, now you show me why super-strict gun control is the answer to all our prayers?

First, that's the way it works, You state more gun ownership means less crime you're supposed to back that up. Second, I never said that super-strict gun control was an answer to anything. I'm only asking questions. I really don't have strong opinions about gun control.

The figures you provide -- and you very often get different numbers wherever you look, mine were 2010 yours are 2011, your 2011 figures differ from Wildcat's -- seem to suggest more guns mean fewer homicides. The problem is I don't know how you prove the relationship.

There's so many societal factors. Urban areas provide most gun homicides, right? Obviously you're going to have more killings in Los Angeles than Casper Wyoming. But is it because there are more gun owners in Casper? Is that the only reason, the primary reason? How do you prove that?

How about other crime? Why do you only reference homicides?

Look I understand you believe this wholeheartedly. I understand you get frustrated when other people don't. Only that's the way it is. You make a statement, people are going to ask you, how do you know that.

 

[WildCat]

I understand what you're saying except you're just making a series of statements. I know you believe it but is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime? You're not providing anything to back it up. If you want to influence public opinion you have to have compelling evidence. Not just compelling talking points.

Is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime?

Oh look, a goal post move! It's changed from "show having a gun can be used to defend oneself" to "is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime". I don't think anyone made that claim, so sorry to ignore the strawman you so very carefully constructed. The fact remains that a gun can be used to protect oneself from criminals. Like this guy did:

You can make a snarky reply -- I'll make it for you, Let's see, I'm wearing a gun and you're not. Who do you suppose the criminal is going to attack? -- but that's not proving anything. It just suggests you don't have anything to back up what you're stating.

Wow, it's rare that someone here admits they're constructing a strawman.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Heller defines what is meant by "bear arms".

And we were discussing extending the rationale for the amendment into current arms, not the current SCOTUS interpretation of the amendment. They are different, but if Heller said something relevant I expect you would have posted a quote.

And I'm always amazed by people who say that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment aren't the same "people" in the Preamble, Article I, the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment, the 10th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment.

I'm not one of those people, so to speak. I think all people should have access to military weapons to fight the tyranny of government as a part of a well regulated militia. But separate and apart from a militia I think the right to bear arms should be limited to those who can show they meet basic requirements. Not felons, not crazy, and some basic understanding of gun safety. I'm kind of a radical, I know.

Who are "the people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment in your view?

We are. Who are "the people" in your view?

 

[Sabretooth]

What do you think the data shows?

To be completely honest, I don't know. I have built a spreadsheet using all types of data...like what you see above, plus whether or not it's a "gun friendly" state, total population, etc.

The data is all over the damn place if you look at it as a whole. The only way to make a lick of sense out of the data is if you break it down into comparisons. Like CA v. TX, or NY v. FL, IL v. PA, and so on. Even then, it doesn't prove anything. Look at this...these are the top 6 populate states, whether or not their strict, the % of owners, the GHR, and the GHR rank.

State | Population | % Owners | GHR | GHR Rank | Strict Regs?
California|35,842,038|21.3%|4.82|4th|YES
Texas |22,471,549|35.9%|3.93|14th|NO
New York|19,280,727|18.0%|2.67|25th|YES
Florida|17,385,430|24.5%|3.15|22nd|NO
Illinois|12,712,016|20.2%|4.59|7th|YES
Pennsylvania|12,394,471|34.7%|3.72|16th|NO

You see any correlations there between strict/non-strict? I honestly don't see a huge difference.

But let's start here at least...

 

[WildCat]

I think this is similar to your comparisons between Chicago and Houston, it looks like cherry picking.

Odd you never express such skepticism whenever someone posts a pro-gun control stat. Like the one by doctors that only counts shooting someone as a defensive gun use.

Not to mention that the states you have chosen to compare, while superficially similar, are in fact very different. I've spent a lot of time in both and in some ways they are like different countries.

And which of these "different county" differences do you think makes the comparison invalid?

Is that in line with your original claim on this issue?

Yes.

One might conclude that the winds off the pacific negate the impact of the restrictions, as well. Neither conclusion has much support from the presented data.

One might conclude that, if it made any sense at all.

 

[WildCat]

And we were discussing extending the rationale for the amendment into current arms, not the current SCOTUS interpretation of the amendment. They are different, but if Heller said something relevant I expect you would have posted a quote.



I'm not one of those people, so to speak. I think all people should have access to military weapons to fight the tyranny of government as a part of a well regulated militia. But separate and apart from a militia I think the right to bear arms should be limited to those who can show they meet basic requirements. Not felons, not crazy, and some basic understanding of gun safety. I'm kind of a radical, I know.

And yet you support arbitrary and meaningless things like magazine size limits and bans on pistol grips and flash suppressors?

We are. Who are "the people" in your view?

If "we are", how doesn't the 2nd Amendment convey an individual right?

 

[newyorkguy]

Oh look, a goal post move! It's changed from "show having a gun can be used to defend oneself" to "is there any direct evidence that gun owners suffer less crime". I don't think anyone made that claim, so sorry to ignore the strawman you so very carefully constructed. The fact remains that a gun can be used to protect oneself from criminals. Like this guy did:



Wow, it's rare that someone here admits they're constructing a strawman.

You continue to be sarcastic and snarky yet I remain courteous.

When did I say a gun can't be used for defense? That's a stupid statement and I don't consider myself a stupid person. Of course guns are valuable for self-defense. They're weapons.

I said if people are going to use self-defense as an important consideration in making gun control laws less restrictive, to overturn them in some cases, then they need to be able to show that guns are being used as an effective defense.

I'm asking you if you can demonstrate that.

 

[Xulld]

First, that's the way it works, You state more gun ownership means less crime you're supposed to back that up. Second, I never said that super-strict gun control was an answer to anything. I'm only asking questions.

What he stated is far less important than what this discussion is about.

When someone is more engaged in the literal statement vs the context of the conversation I start to wonder. (this is called fishing for gotcha's)

If you are pro-gun control then you are proposing that laws can impact the incidence of violence perpetrated by a criminal using a gun.

Shifting the goal posts to be "super-strict" is just a shady way of trying to claim you were never for something you clearly support.

Any individual who can no longer legally own a weapon they purchased in any state is a ban for that person. Banning a single feature is a complete ban for the person who cannot afford to replace the feature/gun.

It is nonsense to speak to how strict a law is when all of the proposed laws which restrict access to features or firearms are a complete ban for the people with those firearms.

It is even more dishonest to pretend you are not suggesting such.

You continue to be sarcastic and snarky yet I remain courteous.

You are either oblivious to your errors of reasoning, or are being rude in not addressing them. (This goes for both you and Keith.)

I'm asking you if you can demonstrate that.

You are shifting the burden. Your the gun control advocate. Demonstrate that the proposed laws have an impact.

I'm not one of those people, so to speak. I think all people should have access to military weapons to fight the tyranny of government as a part of a well regulated militia. But separate and apart from a militia I think the right to bear arms should be limited to those who can show they meet basic requirements. Not felons, not crazy, and some basic understanding of gun safety. I'm kind of a radical, I know.

Clear as mud. The bold part indicates you realize this . . .

 

[Dr. Keith]

To be completely honest, I don't know. I have built a spreadsheet using all types of data...like what you see above, plus whether or not it's a "gun friendly" state, total population, etc.

The data is all over the damn place if you look at it as a whole. The only way to make a lick of sense out of the data is if you break it down into comparisons. Like CA v. TX, or NY v. FL, IL v. PA, and so on. Even then, it doesn't prove anything. Look at this...these are the top 6 populate states, whether or not their strict, the % of owners, the GHR, and the GHR rank.

State | Population | % Owners | GHR | GHR Rank | Strict Regs?
California|35,842,038|21.3%|4.82|4th|YES
Texas |22,471,549|35.9%|3.93|14th|NO
New York|19,280,727|18.0%|2.67|25th|YES
Florida|17,385,430|24.5%|3.15|22nd|NO
Illinois|12,712,016|20.2%|4.59|7th|YES
Pennsylvania|12,394,471|34.7%|3.72|16th|NO

You see any correlations there between strict/non-strict? I honestly don't see a huge difference.

But let's start here at least...

That is kinda what I expected. I didn't expect a correlation because it is so simplistic of a measure. I think we need to spend money collecting meaningful data, but that has been sidelined and it will take some time to recover from that.

ETA: Thanks for putting this stuff together.

 

[WildCat]

I said if people are going to use self-defense as an important consideration in making gun control laws less restrictive, to overturn them in some cases, then they need to be able to show that guns are being used as an effective defense.

I'm asking you if you can demonstrate that.

I just demonstrated it. You appear to have seen the video, so ...

 

[WildCat]

That is kinda what I expected. I didn't expect a correlation because it is so simplistic of a measure. I think we need to spend money collecting meaningful data, but that has been sidelined and it will take some time to recover from that.

I think there's plenty of evidence as to what causes violence, and guns don't appear to be one of them.

The "war on drugs" and gang culture appear to have far more influence on homicide rates than guns control laws do. Perhaps the money you want to spend could be put to better use than attempting to find a link between gun laws and violence that is at best an extremely minor part of the equation?

 

[Xulld]

I think there's plenty of evidence as to what causes violence, and guns don't appear to be one of them.

The "war on drugs" and gang culture appear to have far more influence on homicide rates than guns control laws do. Perhaps the money you want to spend could be put to better use than attempting to find a link between gun laws and violence that is at best an extremely minor part of the equation?

I agree, it is just like Anti-vaccers who propose to continue to research the vaccines autism "link" instead of looking for real causes.

The data is good data, you may want more refined data, but when no correlation exists in good data you start to look for other causes, not get more refined data. (I imagine some cherry picked data like the Harvard studies will now be used to bring us full circle, another tactic that is reminiscent)

Actually its worse, because no proposed mechanism exists to explain a cause. That makes this on par with Anti-vaccers, and worse than homeopathy proponents. Makes sense from that context when they toss around the words, "common sense gun control". Common sense indeed, the same common sense that supports quack medicines.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Odd you never express such skepticism whenever someone posts a pro-gun control stat. Like the one by doctors that only counts shooting someone as a defensive gun use.

I have been consistent in calling for more data. NRA has been consistent in calling for the defunding any department that tries to collect data.

The doctors worked with the data they had, which was imperfect. Your comparison ignores a lot of data you have. There is a difference. One is the result of not having better data, the other is the result of choosing to ignore some of the data.

If you can collect the data for TX and CA you can pull data for the 15 largest states and show if there is a correlation. It's not hard. It also doesn't produce a lot that supports your point. See Spindrift's work above.

And which of these "different county" differences do you think makes the comparison invalid?

Percent of land in private ownership.

Income disparity.

Home price disparity.

Alcohol regulations.

Acceptance of regulations generally.

Yes.

Lower = essentially the same?

The two sentences seemed to be presenting the same data in different light, but I agree more with the later, so I'll let it go.

One might conclude that, if it made any sense at all.

And one might show a strong correlation between gun regulation and violence is there was one to show. I just haven't seen it yet.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And yet you support arbitrary and meaningless things like magazine size limits and bans on pistol grips and flash suppressors?

Nope. I have said the AWB is silly several times.

If "we are", how doesn't the 2nd Amendment convey an individual right?

It does, now. It didn't for over 100 years. It is not a clear sentence.

But to be clear, I can work with the current SCOTUS view of the 2A. Are you ok with the SCOTUS view of gun regulations? The view that registration or licensing is perfectly fine under the constitution so long as it is not discriminatory or an effective ban?