OTOH, eliminating antibiotics because they don't always work is futile either. Similarly, flooding the streets with guns might not be the best idea...despite some people's claims that everyone now has a right to defend themselves. In both cases, perhaps we should spend some effort in finding the best minimum requirement that makes the most of both's effectiveness. I would only offer this compromise for guns because our society and history makes it fairly easy for a determined individual to purchase an unlicensed weapon. Determining that minimum would probably take some ingenius statistics and heavy number crunching. It could factor in # of responsible individuals who go through periodic firearm training, base murder rate, a culture's gravitation towards violence, wealth distribution, etc... Of course, stats are prone to scrutiny, but even a small reduction in firearm mortality and the overall murder rate would be great news.
Anything that is based on good epidemological statistics to reduce the murder rate is fine by me. As long as it reduces the overall murder rate it is OK.
I did mention it several times before you came along, and I did mention it once to New Yorker after you became involved. I am just generally expressing frustration that I have had to repeat against the same stat so often. It is not particularly directed at you, though I find it strange that you should expect everybody else to ignore the converstation that came before you became involved. For the statistics: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp You also created a whole new equation, so my statement still stands as logical and valid. Are you claiming there is a new factor of "?" that simultaniously arives with the English gun ban? If so what is it? First, I think it is quantitatively more valid to discuss one country before and after guns, than it is to discuss two different countries. I think this should be obvious. There are no complicating variables which come from comparing different countries, so I am not making an intuitive leap of faith. As far as evidence, if you do a search for 'gun murder epidemology' and skip past the non-journal articles you get a panoply of results. But since I have yet to see anybody offer a cogent response to my first statistical point - or even aknowledge that I am intending to make a point, I see no need to expand the discussion and bring in more evidence.
I don't "expect" anything - it's a 40 page 800 post monster thread which I have only read 10% or less of. Just letting you know that as you seemed to be presupposing that I had caught it all. I have not. Video games? Rap music? Or the 375k per annum net populaiton gain since 1993 (looks like homicides per capita may even be declining, though I haven't done the math).
Maybe because gun control in the UK has been successful and limits fire arm deaths to only 50 a year, further gun control doesn't make a difference in the murder rate. But you can't admit it - instead you take it to me that gun control doesn't work. But the UK didn't put gun control in place - it just made gun control more restrictive. The murder rate in the UK is still extremely low. The point is that the UK is an excellent model for the U.S. Firearm murders are at a higher rate than the OVERALL murder rate in the UK. I've shown you that the crime rate decreases faster in states with stricter gun control - you admited that this is concrete evidence - so you have to admit that UK type gun control would work here. We need to get rid of the guns first....let's not roll dice with human lives. If we can save even 100's of lives, gun control is worth it.
You never took any statistics classes in college, huh? To imply that the difference is a result of gun laws is a total red herring as I have already indicated many times. Read the stuff about changing variables again. Do you really not understand? When UK had guns the overall murder rate was less than the US firearms rate, too. 1997 GUN LAW = NO CHANGE IN MURDER RATE Do you believe that replacing a gun death with a knife death makes any difference to the person who was murdered? If you think a gun murder is worse than a knife murder, since gun deaths are reduced and replaced by knife deaths it would qualify as an improved condition in your logic. That logic, however, is completely illogical to me. This is the operative word. It seems to me that you are making judgments based on the argument that appeals to you the most. As to the terminology, in the common parlance of England the 1997 law is known as the guns ban. In practical terms it makes it impossible to own a handgun. You can own a long rifle but you have to keep it at your gun club, not in your home. I think shotguns can be kept at home, but I am not totally sure. You have to have a certificate before buying any type of gun. What we would need would be a force that essentially went into effect immediately went the Guns ban was enacted, and exactly offset the reduction in murder brought on by the guns ban. So a event which takes place over the exact period of time that it took to introduce the guns ban, and was of the exact same opposite magnitude. I hope you can appreciate why I might discount this as less likely? In any case, if you can come up with a legitimate mechnanism that fits the described characteristics, I will absolutely listen and re-examine how I weigh this particular bit of evidence. But I certanly appreciate that you have responded in a thoughtful way to my concerns with your own set. Thanks for that. If you look back at my earliest posts circa 2000 I was about middle of the road pro-gun control. I am willing to listen to evidence and at least once in recent memory I have changed my mind on this subject.
But you haven't demonstrated that if you take guns away, they will simply be all replaced by stabbings instead of gun shots. And we know the survival rate from a knife attack is higher than a gun shot wound - so that alone implies there must be other factors affecting murder rate overall - but you don't wish to acknowledge that. I did take stat by the way - pretty advance stuff - and one thing we learned is that if your model doesn't account for all independent variables - than you may not end up with a great model. You're ignoring trends in the UK such as increased immigration as a source driving the murder rate. But we do know that the firearm murder rate is at an amazing low level. Those are the facts.
Do you not understand the before/after figures? They have been posted in this thread, though many many pages back. Actually, that I don't wish to aknowlege it is verifyably false by reading my old posts in this thread. But why let a little fact get in the way of a good argument? I agree. It seems fairly obvious that when you compare the same country over two contiguous periods, your unknown variables will be less subject to wild deviation than when you compare two different countries over any period of time. Again, verifyably false based on my posts in this thread. I have no search function at the moment, but look for 'DCI' and you will find the it. We also know that the percentage of the population that is black is lower. Is that somehow relevent to the difference in the murder rate? I don't know this for a fact, but is assumed that a larger percentage of the British people have bad teeth. Is that somehow related? Correlation does not imply causation [rquoter] Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in the sciences and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not imply there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. Its converse, correlation implies causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are prematurely claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. It is also known as c*m hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. [/rquoter]
you're not interested in debating - just debunking anything by saying things like correlation means nothing - and yet saing all other trends are meaningless and the only absolute truth is that a murder has nothing to do with the accessibility to murder weapons. Go ahead and believe that - i give up because there's no matter what evidence there is, I am convinced you don't really care to hear it. So we'll just leave it as we see it differently and nothing more.
Pre 1997 gun laws (more restrictive than anything in most or all US states) = 500% reduction in murder rate, vis a vis the US. You're arguing about a country that EFFECTIVELY regulates guns (to a point) - and in the contemporary period, alway has, a lot more than the US. You're taking marginal change at one point and subbing it in for marginal change at another point. That's skewing things a bit. Perhaps at the margins excessive regulation doesn't work - but since the US is not at that margin yet, it is of less relevance. Again - I haven't seen the per capita numbers, but I do know that immigration to the UK (some due to EU open borders, some due to global pressures) accelerated immensely in the late 90's continuing through till today, as did income disparity. see above - there's one of two choices up there, both marginal and external factors. And that is tabling efficacy - I mean, to take a common pro gun comparison - Finland, for example, has far more restrictive registration laws than the NRA would ever accept, and enforces them fairly toughly, at least that is my impression. While I don't think the US could achieve that level of efficacy, I think with some refinements and determined enforcement, it could do a lot closer to Finland or Switzerland than to Mexico or Iraq.
I think that there is sufficent evidence that the baseline difference in the murder rate are more cultural than a result of the presence or absence of prohibitions. I firmly believe that you are comparing apples to oranges. I know of many British people who would object to your characterization of the 1997 law as a marginal change. As I am not a barrister, or whatever the hell they call English lawyers, I don’t really know. But in general terms I think it is fundamentally many times more relevant and valid to compare a 'before and after' with the same country, than two separate countries, no mater how much you might 'feel' they are alike. This holds true for all subjects, from murder rates, to any other statistic. But more to the point, a couple of posts back you were arguing for how relevant the UK situation is to the United States. Now you are arguing that it isn't relevant to the US? Well that has essentially been my point all along, so I'm glad we finally agree. The British people that I know tell me that the extreme growth in foreign residents is a result of the accession of Eastern European states to the EU. This happened after the enactment of the law. I may have the wrong impression, but again that was told to me by some British people and agreed to by a Scottish police detective who is in favor of the 1997 law. See, now this is an approach that I can find somewhat reasonable. You have a goal to reduce murder rates. I only ask that any alterations in the gun laws be done with a tangible goal like this in mind, and that it should be checked to see that this goal is actually met by our new restrictive law. So if we outlaw all purple-colored guns, I only ask that there be clear evidence that this is a benefit. If you don't think this evidence can be gathered beforehand, then this can even be in the form of a law that is enacted for a period (say 10 years?) after which a minimal level of epidemiological improvement in the relevant crime rates should be required to be met, or the law is sunsetted. I also think this should to be done incrementally to find the 'sweet spot'. Beyond a certain point of restricting guns, the other thing I would say is that the 2nd Amendment shouldn’t be ignored just because you don’t like it. For a total ban or something that effectively is a total ban, if it proves to be effective I think you do need a constitutional amendment. My primary objection is people who hate guns, are squeamish about guns, and so want to ban them because they have some sort of aesthetic or emotional objection. I don't agree with banning guns just because someone doesn't like them. I think basing the case on English murder rates is a correlation without causation. Perhaps I'm just not articulate enough in these maters to make you see what seems like it should be clear. I sincerely believe that the evidence shows that levels of murder are in large part independent of access to guns, or knifes, or large rocks. If the evidence proves me wrong, I will gladly admit that I am wrong. Would you be willing to do the same?
Well rather than going through the whole charade of responding point by point I'll just get to the meat of the issue here. I think if you go to comparables there's a lot of evidence to the contrary - Look at murder rates (sorry I don't have any numbers) in poor countries that are loaded with firearms, like many Central American places or African places - and then look at them in poor countries with a dearth of firearms (the best example I can give you are places like certain south Pacific Islands, maybe New Guinea). Now I understand the societal influences are differnt, but it's not like Pacific Islanders don't come from a warrior culture, they just haven't been flooded with guns like certain other places have been. Same with rich countries - take most modern western democracies (even those with lots of immigration and income disparity) and almost invariably they have less firearm access than the US and at the same time less murders. Obviously they are not the perfect parallel - but it isn't like France or England doesn't have a significant degree of ethnic and class based unrest. But they do have less access (the key, regardless of what laws are in force I agree) to firearms and their murder rates are a lot lower. I'm sorry but this evidence (along with the intuitive evidence that killing somebody with a gun is simply phsyically easier than with a knife) resonates and I have yet to see a good reason to discard it yet.
See, now when you bring up the murder rate in Tuvalu, Tonga, and Vanatu like this, after disqualifying Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe as 'too unlike the USA to matter', I begin to believe that you are either consciously or unconsciously selectively choosing to ignore evidence because you don't care for it. In fact, a pattern of selective avoidance of uncomfortable data begins to form. You can look back at my other complaints in this regard. From my perspective you seem to be fitting your argument to your preconceived notions of the world.
Ummm, the murder rate in Russia is -- to quote the pro-gun article - "staggeringly high" - as I said in the post you just quoted - paper gun laws are not meaningful when not enforced - I'm explicitly referring to gun access here. I made that clear: Another thing made clear, if you read my post, I was specifically NOT comparing the south pacific to the US, but to other poor nations. I mean - that's why I brought it up. Talk about selectively ignoring stuff. Yeah, well ok otto, read my post correctly first before you resort to the faux-neutral tsk-tsk ing. Talk about pre-conceived notions....
Alright, then. Comparing Tuvalu to Colombia is no more meaningful than comparing Russia to the USA - better? Well, OK didn't mean to make you mad.
