Why gun control push fizzled?

[Sabretooth]

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.

Well, my next collection is a breakdown of city/metro centers. State statistics seem to be too broad. Problem is that city crime data isn't as centralized and will take me a lot longer to collect accurately.

I will say that my initial findings, unsurprisingly perhaps, that the GHR skyrockets within high-population metro areas. Chicago, NYC, Philly, LA, etc.

Further, as you break it down into areas within the metro areas, my early data shows that the vast majority of gun murders are within low-income districts. Again, another shocker.

For example, in NY state, the NYC counties of Bronx and Kings far and away lead the state in GHR (10.63 and 7.82, respectively). These are counties with high population and poor areas. Then you look at other counties like Suffolk and Nassau where there are similar population, but are mostly upper-middle-class...their GHR's are 2.13 and 1.71.

Granted, this is only NY, but it doesn't take rocket surgery to see low-income areas are the areas driving these numbers...and the Bronx/Kings counties are essentially "gun-banned" zones. With this data, the idea of implementing super-strict gun control is a phenomenal failure.

Optimally, police and politicians alike should be finding a way to resolve the culture and lack of prosperity instead of going after Joe Farmer with the AR-15 .223 he uses to kill the woodchucks that tear up his fields.

ETA: Thanks for putting this stuff together.

NP. I don't mind doing it if it helps further an educational discussion/debate.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Because we've seen the quality of that work, and it was driven by an anti-gun agenda rather than scientific enquiry.

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.

No, they worked with the data they chose. The data they cherry-picked to reach their pre-determined conclusion to produce the very same results anti-gun groups have produced for years, except this time under the color of an official government study. Those anti-gun groups, btw, used the exact same cherry-picked data and biased criteria.

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.

If by "Spindrift" you meant "Sabretooth" how doesn't it support my point?

And in the following section you throw out various metrics, without explaining how you think each one is relevant to homicide rates. Why did you choose these particular metrics? Anyway, I'll play along.

Percent of land in private ownership.

California - 2.25% is public land. Texas is 1.43%. Again, very similar. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

Income disparity.

Texas ranks #2, California #8. Again very similar. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/economy/income_gap/index.htm

Home price disparity.

No idea.

Alcohol regulations.

I have no idea which metric you wish to measure. But those are usually done at the county/municipal level, not by state.

Acceptance of regulations generally.

How do you measure this?

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.

No one's seen the correlation between vaccines and autism yet either, maybe we just need to spend more money on studies?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Because we've seen the quality of that work, and it was driven by an anti-gun agenda rather than scientific enquiry.

So, we shut down data collection because the more data that is collected the more likely the data will go against your position? Glad we got that out in the open.

No, they worked with the data they chose. The data they cherry-picked to reach their pre-determined conclusion to produce the very same results anti-gun groups have produced for years, except this time under the color of an official government study. Those anti-gun groups, btw, used the exact same cherry-picked data and biased criteria.

So there is data out there that tracks every defensive gun use that you think should have been considered? If so, do a better study.

If by "Spindrift" you meant "Sabretooth" how doesn't it support my point?

Thanks for the correction and . . . maybe you could point out the correlation you are trying to prove?

And in the following section you throw out various metrics, without explaining how you think each one is relevant to homicide rates. Why did you choose these particular metrics?

They are very different states in many ways. These are just off the top of my head.

Anyway, I'll play along.

California - 2.25% is public land. Texas is 1.43%. Again, very similar. http://www.nrcm.org/documents/publiclandownership.pdf

No, that is just state owned. Public owned is more like 42% and 2%. In other words, Texans have more privately owned undeveloped land, ranches and farms. Many of us grew up with guns exploring our own land an have a hard time understanding why you would want to hunt on state or federal land or why you would even need a shooting range, the creek bank works fine and you don't have to wear shoes.

Texas ranks #2, California #8. Again very similar. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/economy/income_gap/index.htm

That actually surprises me. Thanks!

PS: I looked for more recent numbers, but they were still pretty much the same.

No idea.

An expensive house in Texas vs California. Real estate here is very cheap, so we tend to have more disposable income in the middle class.

I have no idea which metric you wish to measure. But those are usually done at the county/municipal level, not by state.

How do you measure this?

This get at a weird thing, Texans loathe all regulations, but have very stringent regulation on sales of alcohol. It is weird. On the flip side Californian vote all sorts of regulations onto themselves and yet you can buy vodka at the grocery store 7 days a week. So Californians will regulate the lead content of a lead balloon, but not do anything that would keep their drink to far away. It is a completely different mindset, a completely different electorate and a completely different jurisdiction.

No one's seen the correlation between vaccines and autism yet either, maybe we just need to spend more money on studies?

Actually, we have the data and it shows that there is no correlation. You do get the difference, yes?

 

[newyorkguy]

Again, if you want to make gun ownership for self-defense an important goal of gun control than you have to make a case that it would be effective. Not post a video of a man shooting a thug.

Second, I don't see the public supporting the goal of increased gun ownership as a way to make society safer. I'm sorry I just don't think most Americans want that kind of society. Where a) everybody's carrying a gun or b) has one in their home. I don't have a big problem with 'b' but I'm don't want to see 'a' either.

Third, arming a frail old lady will make her safe against attack. Possible. It could also get her killed in what would've been a non-violent robbery. Isn't that possible?

The man next door to me owns a hand gun. I don't have any problem with that but I don't feel any less safe than he does. Home invasions are not a big problem in our neighborhood. If they were I doubt I would go out and buy a hand gun.

I would upgrade the locks. Install fencing. Maybe put motion-activated lighting in. Possibly install a home safety system wired to a central office. For me that's preferable.

What if I'm not home? I don't want my wife to have to rely on shooting it out with thugs in order to be safe. I don't believe she would have to.

 

[triforcharity]

Chicago police are only required to shoot 50 rounds per year at a range. Hardly adequate to maintain a high level of skill.

Are you *********** kidding me? 50 rounds PER YEAR?!?!?! I shoot that before breakfast some days....wow...

 

[triforcharity]

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.

You and others are the "Let's control guns more because....." It's YOUR burden to show that stricter gun control is effective in lowering gun crime. YOUR burden. I've explained this before. You ignored it. Now you've built another strawman, that we're supposed to defend against, but yet, it comes from YOUR own imagination. Awesome.

 

[triforcharity]

So, we shut down data collection because the more data that is collected the more likely the data will go against your position? Glad we got that out in the open.

That's not what he said at all. What he actually said, was why spend money, public money, on studies that are incomplete, flawed, applied incorrectly, and fly in the face of the scientific method. For instance, one study, I don't recall which one, (I can look if you really want me to) but it was on defensive gun uses. However, they completely omitted instances of someone using a gun in self defense, but didn't pull the trigger. Doesn't sound very scientific does it? This is a major problem for me. Not because of my bias, which I will fully admit to, but as a science guy myself, who's published peer reviewed papers, but because the scientific method of a study, omitted a completely relevant group of data.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's not what he said at all. What he actually said, was why spend money, public money, on studies that are incomplete, flawed, applied incorrectly, and fly in the face of the scientific method. For instance, one study, I don't recall which one, (I can look if you really want me to) but it was on defensive gun uses. However, they completely omitted instances of someone using a gun in self defense, but didn't pull the trigger. Doesn't sound very scientific does it? This is a major problem for me. Not because of my bias, which I will fully admit to, but as a science guy myself, who's published peer reviewed papers, but because the scientific method of a study, omitted a completely relevant group of data.

That was the study we were both talking about that was done at a time when the CDC could not collect real data or do anything to improve data collection, so they had to use police reports. Have you seen the box on police reports that indicates a gun was brandished effectively without firing?

If you don't like the available data, collecting less is not typically the skeptical approach. More data will always lead to a better understanding while less data will allow anecdotes to take over the conversation. That's not science.

 

[newyorkguy]

That was the study we were both talking about that was done at a time when the CDC could not collect real data or do anything to improve data collection, so they had to use police reports. Have you seen the box on police reports that indicates a gun was brandished effectively without firing?

I've been asking if there is such a study. Could somebody post a link?

 

[Xulld]

Not to beat a dead horse . . . because I feel my arguments here are very clearly true, but what we have her are people with an agenda playing at science against those who understand what it means to do real science and not compelled by the gamesmanship, or cry of not enough data.

Access to firearms is the weakest correlation to gun homicides amongst the various metrics available. No causal mechanism exists to explain why access to a gun given all other things being equal would change that metric.

This makes access to gun based legislation irrational unless the real goal is a ban.

The lack of focus on aspects of culture which DO engage with a causal mechanism are downplayed and ignored, this supports the idea that those pushing for gun control are driven by ideology and not science or good intentions.

 

[Giz]

That's not what he said at all. What he actually said, was why spend money, public money, on studies that are incomplete, flawed, applied incorrectly, and fly in the face of the scientific method. For instance, one study, I don't recall which one, (I can look if you really want me to) but it was on defensive gun uses. However, they completely omitted instances of someone using a gun in self defense, but didn't pull the trigger. Doesn't sound very scientific does it? This is a major problem for me. Not because of my bias, which I will fully admit to, but as a science guy myself, who's published peer reviewed papers, but because the scientific method of a study, omitted a completely relevant group of data.

Yeah, calling people under age 25 as "youths" (what happened to 18?), and ignoring victims criminal activity in their analysis of risk factors (in favor of simplistic "did he keep a gun?" questions, as if a firearm owning accountant has an equal chance of getting shot as a gang member or drug dealer ...)

A lot of the "scientific" studies are a disgrace.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Not to beat a dead horse . . . because I feel my arguments here are very clearly true,

Luckily you are not alone . . .

but what we have her are people with an agenda playing at science against those who understand what it means to do real science and not compelled by the gamesmanship, or cry of not enough data.

Cool, so you were collecting unbiased data while the federal government was unable. Care to share?

My issue is that one study is lambasted for using available data while another poster will look at a list of 20 cities and pluck two to compare instead of trying to show a correlation based on all 20 cities. If there is a correlation then it should be stronger by looking at all of the data, not by cherry picking. That just leads me to cherry pick a counter example and then we hav anecdote v. anecdote which is even less scientific.

Access to firearms is the weakest correlation to gun homicides amongst the various metrics available.

That should be easy to show. Pretty straightforward claim, I'm sure you have a peer reviewed study that backs this up.

No causal mechanism exists to explain why access to a gun given all other things being equal would change that metric.

Well, I can think of one, but I'll not bog you down with opinions, lets focus on science.

This makes access to gun based legislation irrational unless the real goal is a ban.

Would background checks fall into "access to gun based legislation" or are you talking about banning of types of weapons like AWB?

If the later, I agree completely. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. That's why we need to limit the people who have access to guns instead of limiting the guns that people have access to.

The lack of focus on aspects of culture which DO engage with a causal mechanism are downplayed and ignored, this supports the idea that those pushing for gun control are driven by ideology and not science or good intentions.

What aspects of culture are you referring to?

My guess would be the war on drugs, something we agree is net negative, but I'm wondering if you are thinking of something else.

 

[newyorkguy]

Actually what happened in this thread is, so far as I can see...

Someone objected to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referring to sportsmen and hunters in some remarks he made about guns. Objected that he didn't mention self-defense.

I don't think many government officials are going to be quoted talking about guns for self-protection. That's a road they don't want to go down.

So I wrote, how big an issue is that? How important a role does gun ownership play in personal safety. Not that it makes you feel safe to have a gun -- though I guess that's a legitimate point -- but does anyone have any data to support that gun owners suffer less crime than non-gun owners? Because if you want the political process to recognize self-protection as an important part of gun ownership you have to make a case for it.

The first rule of debate is, if someone asks a question you don't have a good answer for than you must-

1. Attack the question.
2. Attack the questioner
3. Say the question posed "is not the real issue" and refuse to entertain it.

I think all we're seeing is variations on those three rules.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Yeah, calling people under age 25 as "youths" (what happened to 18?), and ignoring victims criminal activity in their analysis of risk factors (in favor of simplistic "did he keep a gun?" questions, as if a firearm owning accountant has an equal chance of getting shot as a gang member or drug dealer ...)

A lot of the "scientific" studies are a disgrace.

And having fewer of them is certainly the answer. They will certainly get better once we stop them from being funded!

 

[newyorkguy]

Again, if you're trying to prove a position and the available data either doesn't support it or supports something else, than you must-

1. Attack the study
2. Attack studies in general.
3. Say the study doesn't address "the real issue" and refuse to discuss it.

Once you learn these simple rules you can argue anything: up is down, left is right, black is white.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Someone objected to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referring to sportsmen and hunters in some remarks he made about guns. Objected that he didn't mention self-defense.

I'll have to go back to see if I'm right, but i think the objection was that the second amendment was not about hunting and sportsmen, but about defending the public from the tyranny of government. A sort of self defense, but not how that phrase is typically used.

Now, I think we have talked elsewhere about how the second amendments purpose is a bit moot. Democracy has proven more successful than the founding fathers could have anticipated. The vote and freedom of speech have supplanted arms as the weapon of choice for people all over the world who are unhappy with their government, especially in the US.

Anyone who thinks they will have an opportunity to use a gun as intended by a plain reading of the second amendment is delusional. A traitor, not a patriot.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Again, if you're trying to prove a position and the available data either doesn't support it or supports something else, than you must-

1. Attack the study
2. Attack studies in general.
3. Say the study doesn't address "the real issue" and refuse to discuss it.

Once you learn these simple rules you can argue anything: up is down, left is right, black is white.

0. Attack the authors for no apparent reason.

 

[WildCat]

So, we shut down data collection because the more data that is collected the more likely the data will go against your position? Glad we got that out in the open.




So there is data out there that tracks every defensive gun use that you think should have been considered? If so, do a better study.

Ah, so now you think that since there is no data that tracks "every defensive gun use" (an impossible standard btw) you think we should defer to a study that only counts actual defensive shootings that hit someone?

Thanks for the correction and . . . maybe you could point out the correlation you are trying to prove?

I don't recall saying there was a correlation. I recall saying that California gun owners are having their rights restricted for no reason apparent in the statistics.

They are very different states in many ways. These are just off the top of my head.

Why not include the number of movie stars residing in each state? The acreage under citrus? The number of cowboy boots sold?

Don't you think that the differences you pick should have some defined relevance to the homicide rate, rather than just random stuff off the top of your head?

No, that is just state owned. Public owned is more like 42% and 2%. In other words, Texans have more privately owned undeveloped land, ranches and farms. Many of us grew up with guns exploring our own land an have a hard time understanding why you would want to hunt on state or federal land or why you would even need a shooting range, the creek bank works fine and you don't have to wear shoes.

Where are you getting your numbers? The site I cited p) includes state and federal lands under "public". California also has lots of ranches and farms and undeveloped land. It doesn't all look like LA.

An expensive house in Texas vs California. Real estate here is very cheap, so we tend to have more disposable income in the middle class.

Even if what you say is true, and you've provided no evidence whatsoever, so what? How does that impact homicide rates?

This get at a weird thing, Texans loathe all regulations, but have very stringent regulation on sales of alcohol. It is weird. On the flip side Californian vote all sorts of regulations onto themselves and yet you can buy vodka at the grocery store 7 days a week. So Californians will regulate the lead content of a lead balloon, but not do anything that would keep their drink to far away. It is a completely different mindset, a completely different electorate and a completely different jurisdiction.

Again, relevance?

Actually, we have the data and it shows that there is no correlation. You do get the difference, yes?

Why do you ask me? Shouldn't you be asking the doctors who concluded "more regulations means less gun crime"?

 

[Giz]

And having fewer of them is certainly the answer. They will certainly get better once we stop them from being funded!

Funding rubbish just gets you more rubbish.


If your auto mechanic kept damaging your car instead of fixing it, would you keep going to him and also start bringing in your wife's car... or would you stop going there?

 

[AlBell]

The sad thing is that we are likely to have another such event in the next 12 months or so. Maybe not so many dead, maybe not in a school, but it doesn't seem like we get much of a break.

And then those pushing for gun control will be accused of only doing it while passions are high.

It will be pointed out as a fact demonstrated by past flurries for gun control. That and the mantra 'never let a crisis go to waste'